gerryhatrick

You said the the think tank "agrees with" me. Small difference. As for think tanks attracting people of a like mind....the report by this think tank is of an on-the-ground nature. They're reporting on the reality of the current war in Afghanistan as it's playing out in front of them in Afghanistan. It's a little weak to dismiss them as all like-minded people reporting what they want unless you're presuming to call them liars. Absolutely, if the reality is that by staying all we will do is engage in an expanded war with nationalist entities. There's no point saving Afghani women from the burqua if it means we have to level the country in the process.

Kick this for an update. Not only is Harper unable to face the press, he is unable to face up to the judgement of the Chief Electoral Officer over the issue of $1.7 Million delagate contributions to the party. I just started a new topic on it......it's been 2.5 months since they've been asked for the books from their convention, and in spite of claiming they've provided what they were asked for they have not. The Chief Electoral Officer confirmed this last week.

These constant accusations of hating or attacking Harper are insane. When I state a fact it is not an "attack". Harper has not increased his lead since the election. That is a factual statement, not an attack. I realize you work for the CPC, but you need to allow the free flow of facts and opinions without blowing a gasket.

Think tanks, think tanks. Gerry, do you put the same faith in Fraser Institutes findings or do you just go with the ones who agree with you such as maybe the Center for Policy Alternatives? You accuse me of partisan bias, and like two other ignorant f@#ks you suggest I'm happy about the results of this think tanks study ("the ones who agree with you" you say). This think tank has four field offices in Afghanistan. If you're so bent on your mind set that you're not capable of objective consideration of ground reports then what good are you? 1. No. 2. No. 3. Layton - although he is an idiot through and through - has never indicated he believes that. You're making up BS about the man.

Thanks for that. Couldn't have said it better myself. No I am not employed by the Conservative Party of Canada. Yes I have volunteered for them in the past. Yes I am a party member. Yes I will volunteer during the next election, when we crush the Bob Rae lead Liberals... Thought you were a party shill. And I was right. W&W's post, that you are so grateful for, is clearly the work of a disturbed mind. I have told a couple of folks where to park it, but the claim that I "usuall then ends with f&*K you" is obviously a lie. Beyond that it is ad hom attack. And you say "thanks for that", which speaks to yourself.

Oh yeah, you're not employeed by the CPC. You were pegged your first couple of weeks here...running around accusing every poster critical of Harper of "hate". I wasn't the only one wondering out loud if you were a CPC shill. And now in freudian fashion you've admitted it. "Now that WE'VE been in government"? You're in government, huh? Thx for clearing that up. I thank god for everyday I wake up and read what Gerryhatrick has typed and realise that I am fortunate enough not to in any way ever agree with the posts. When he is confronted like this post, he usuall then ends with "F&*k you or something the like. He never has anything to say that is not tainted by his liberal protracted mind, and mostly I think maybe he suffered a brain injury or something just as truamatic. Opinion like Rae would beat Harper by a large margin are almost comical, but maybe that was what he was trying to do. He will insult and accuse people of all stripes just because he likes being a pain in the but. So sad to have to be him. The post wasn't a confrontation to me. What are you blabbering about?

Hardly. Her qualifications are described in wikipedia, and they appear more than sufficient to an objective observer. By that logic everyting Harper is now doing is a failed attempt to win in 2007. Consider that a Liberal PM might have done something for it's pure merit rather than as an election ploy.

Typically articles posted to forums are expected to contain a minority of the text to avoid copyright issues. Your "tidbit" was not judged relavent since it's the obvious comment from the Chief Electoral Officer in advance of getting the books from the Conservatives. I didn't "cut" it. It wasn't included because it didn't compete with the other information.

Oh yeah, you're not employeed by the CPC. You were pegged your first couple of weeks here...running around accusing every poster critical of Harper of "hate". I wasn't the only one wondering out loud if you were a CPC shill. And now in freudian fashion you've admitted it. "Now that WE'VE been in government"? You're in government, huh? Thx for clearing that up.

I don't remember the Liberals ever claiming to have done something as serious as handing over books to the Chief Election Officer when they hadn't. If they made an honest mistake at the convention, then oh well. Admit it and take the lumps. That would have been the smart thing. Instead they're just publically protesting and proclaiming innocence and claiming they've turned over books that they haven't. It is the most bizarre behaviour I've ever seen in Canadian politics.

Contributing to the debate would be to say *something*. But you could stick to your standard *leaderless Liberals* line. For example, why do you think Rae will beat him by the largest margin? Yeah, that would take the ability to debate and add something to the board. Are the Liberals not leaderless at the moment, and running the same as election time? It is a debate point. d-e-b-a-t-e. And learn this girl, there's no requirements dictated by your controlling little self here. I can state my opinion that Rae will beat Harper by the largest margin, and that's good enough.

Can you f'n believe this? The funniest part is that this was buried as a little "Canada brief" item on page A9 today. CPC is asked for Convention books....CPC says they will turn over books.....2.5 months go by...CPC says they've turned over books....Chief Electoral Officer says no books yet. CPC says it didn't break the law, Chief Electoral Officer says if they did what they say they did they broke the law. WTF is going on and why isn't this front page? Not only is a law apparently broken, but they're delaying a request for the books for months and denying any wrongdoing in the process. Remember Stronach, she was accused of not declaring a receipt and it was on the front page for two days!!! Oh that "Liberal press"! Will Harper turn over the books he's been asked for, yes or no?

Which people? The Afghanis? If they are rising up it matters little....the fact that those NATO nations are there is enough for them to fight. If I want you out of my house, I don't care why you're there I just want you out.

The leaderless Liberals are giving him a run for his money....but certainly Rae will beat him by the largest margin.

Why would you leave out her extensive NGO and volunteer work? That was even referenced in the wiki bio you quoted, strange you'd skip it. What do you have against her?

I don't know why some are so against the GG. Seems to be people on the right for some reason. She actually spoke strongly in support of the Afghanistan mission the other day. Maybe they want to rethink their opposition to her.

What are you talking about? Priests are allowed to keep knowlege/allegations/evidence to child molestation a secret if they so choose? How's that? Is that just information garnered in the confessional? What if they turn the corner and Father SickF#ck is diddling an 8 year old? Should they be allowed to keep that evidence a dirty little secret between them and the Vatican for 10 years after that kids 18th birthday? Just how much child rape do you want to keep a secret, exactly? What kind of brutal truth does it take to admit a simple fact? Crimes were comitted and Ratzinger had his name signed to a document giving permission to bishops to hide knowledge and evidence of these crimes.

Regardless of your abortion opinion, you have to watch this and see what this man says would be the only acceptable scenario for an abortion in his opinion. The danger in an assumption of his own religious superiority is apparent when he describes the raped girl in his scenario. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/20/s...e-bill-napolis/ And his finish...the whole thing about how in the old days if a boy got a girl pregnant they got married no matter what and the whole town was involved...."I don't think it's too late to go back to that" he says. That is MESSED UP!

I have no problem giving them everything they need to win - with "win" defined as a defined goal. Saying that anything short of that would "disgrace our history and the people" I'm not comfortable with. If the Senlis Council report is accurate then it's possible that Country is rising up as a people against us and our enemy includes many besides the Taliban. That would mean the strategic move of departing would need to be considered. I can't adopt the "stay the course" attitude of Bush et al because sometimes the course needs a re-adjustment.

There's nothing wrong with questioning the wisdom of a strategic move. I haven't been following the debate, so I couldn't tell you who's involved or what they're saying, but I would never try to stifle it.

What nonsense. If you want to critisize the Liberal leadership candidates then do so with a little intelligence. Calling them all "LOOSERS" simply exposes your irrational partisanship. There is a very good chance that the candidate elected will be the next PM, given the fact that Harper cannot increase his lead over a leaderless party while he has the pulpit of government.

Your wish to see the troops well supported is commendable. As always, they have all the "support of the people". And who is bickering over giving them what they need, btw?

I wouldn't go that far. He's got some valid points. Bush is using 9/11 to forward his partisan case, which is despicable. We should be free from salesmen on some days.

Or if it was creating the very thing it claimed to be fighting? Al-Q membership has exploded since Bush decided to make terrorism an electoral strategy.

There are many myths along those lines. Another is the myth of increased national security from Conservatives. As with fiscal matters, the evidence does not support it. And the example to the South certainly belies the myth.