gerryhatrick

But you are. I'm insightful enough to see partisan propaganda when I see it.

What nonsense. It is the first and only time it's been posted. Don't pollute the forum with your baseless complaints.

Yes, you speak the truth, they spout propaganda. Is it a personal attack? You bet ya, I have no respect for your condescending attitude. These people think enough of you and your country to put their lives on the line unconditionally and you write them off as a bunch of ignorant bumpkins who's opinions are nothing but propaganda, because you just don't understand what they stand for and never will. Just because they've put their lives on the line they don't get a free pass. A soldier in Afghanistan holds no special knowledge that allows him to chastise the rest of us over holding a debate. How about that "condescending attitude", no problem there? And in no way did I write soldiers off as "ignorant bumpkins". You, sir, are a liar.

Who is "we"? You have multiple logins on this site? the rest of your post I cut off. Don't spout nonsense about me not being part of the grassroots for the Conservative party and thus Harper doesn't need to be accountable to me. Accountability by government is to all Canadians. Not just you and your undeclared "we" crew.

Because you keep pushing it as a part of your relentless campaign to belittle Steven Harper and/or the Conservatives at any chance no matter how obscure the reference. Well, that's flattering....but I hardly think my posting of a news item on this forum is causing it to remain an issue. Tell your boss that he's got to deal with it straight on. And you missed this part when you quoted me: The fact is that Harper published a list of donors in May 2004 and was derided by the Liberals for not publishing a COMPLETE list. The response from the Conservatives was that a COMPLETE LIST would be provided by December. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ors_040521.html Did he release the rest of the names in December?

Billions and billions? Was it that much? My, how a few months can serve to distort reality for some!! In any case, at some point the unrelated actions of others will not serve to excuse current actions. Are you comfortable with this poll and it's cost? If you are honest you would admit that it was poorly advised. Even the staunchly Conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation has critisized this sh#t. So, what's up, pegger? You're almost respectful in your disagreement with me, but then in your private message to me you use terms like "mental retardation". Are you getting a little unstable or are you just trying to get around the name calling rule here at our forum? Either way, it's in rather poor taste, but nothing I'm not surprised about coming from you. Please, post my entire PM to you then. Give us a laugh before you're banned for engaging in something you were previously warned about.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean? I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009. You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you. Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please. True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie. They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators. Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here. Yes, they are ignorant and you are smart. You keep telling us. You would never spout propaganda. Engage in personal attacks if it makes you feel better. You are irrelavent in this, I wait to hear from the poster. His post leaves much to be explained. If he's not engaging in propaganda, it will be apparent by an honest explanation of what his words are supposed to mean.

I will be watching with interest, and so should you. He's using an important anniversary to talk about a war that we're involved in.....you need to know what's being said in your name. A war that you probably agreed to 5 years ago. I didn't offer my opinion on the war today, BUT...what's happening in Afghanistan is not the same as it was 5 years ago. The mission is not even under the same command. That constant Conservative point is a little empty.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean? I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009. You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you. Because we all know soldiers are mindless drones, not Canadian citizens entitled to participate in whatever debate they damn well please. True, they have to follow orders.. to an extent.. certainly not any unlawful orders. But his opinion carries just as much weight as any civie. They're not mindless drones, but nor are they insightful political commentators. Most troops are spouting propaganda, truth be known, and this is certainly the case here.

I will be watching with interest, and so should you. He's using an important anniversary to talk about a war that we're involved in.....you need to know what's being said in your name.

Well gee whiz ww, if that's the case then why does the issue remain? The fact is that Harper published a list of donors in May 2004 and was derided by the Liberals for not publishing a COMPLETE list. The response from the Conservatives was that a COMPLETE LIST would be provided by December. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ors_040521.html I can't find any news about the rest of the list coming out. Can you? If this is a false accusation then let's hear Harper say it. So far, cue the crickets. If I'm so "ignorant of the facts" then by all means enlighten me with more than just your personal claims. Provide some links, as I have. Thx.

From the article: "But perhaps most troublesome for the party were the standings in Quebec, where the Tories slipped to 20 per cent from 25 per cent on election day in late January." Now, maybe it's just me and my objective interpretation...but that appears to justify the sub-title by the topic author. It's a shame that some folks have nothing better to do than complain about nothing.

"Get of your asses". Exactly what does that mean? I'm not sure what your objection is. You clearly object, and feel quite strongly about it. The mission is happening...it's on...and we're currently comitted until 2009. You are obliged to perform the mission that your civilian leadership tells you to perform. Perhaps you need to stick to that instead of using your position to put forward partisan BS. The fact that a debate is happening should be of no consequence to you. Just "grab your balls and squezze", as you say, and don't let it fret you.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National Don't hold yer breath. Naming their donors would be death for Harper no doubt. Can you say USA?

If knowing what's right and standing by it gives me "moral superiority" then I guess that's what I'm struttin' with on this topic. I would say claiming things like water vapor is causing the harmful Global Warming we're experiencing makes a person incredibly immoral if they are being willfully ignorant.

Gerry can you post some information on where exactly that line is? You need me to explain to you when you're lying?

Billions and billions? Was it that much? My, how a few months can serve to distort reality for some!! In any case, at some point the unrelated actions of others will not serve to excuse current actions. Are you comfortable with this poll and it's cost? If you are honest you would admit that it was poorly advised. Even the staunchly Conservative Canadian Taxpayers Federation has critisized this sh#t.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...2da&k=41892 Focus groups (see "Harper hires polling firm to guide his path on environment" topic) revealed, and now expensive polling PAID FOR BY CANADIANS performed shortly after the election to find out if his five priorities are popular or not? Harper didn't take long to lose his way on the whole accountability and corruption thing. WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR WHAT IS CLEARLY PARTISAN POLLING???

Didn't think so. Oh, well why didn't you say so. I'll post a topic on it for you. edit: you really should either stay informed or AT LEAST do a google search before sarcastically accusing others of posting innaccuracies. If you're interested in personal credibility, that is.

He didn't misrepresent it, and you did more than just accuse him of that. You've crossed the line from debating in bad faith to full-out lying.

Gamble? Objectively it sounded more like a threat.

Support for what? A $85,000 poll paid for by taxpayers weeks after the last election to find out if Canadians support Harpers five priorities? No, I guess I wouldn't have support for that. Sorta obvious...

You don't know if that's true or not? You must be wholly ignorant of the available facts then. I have some advice for you: don't waste your time arguing with Global Warming deniers. Their goal is not to seek or inform the truth, their only goal is to argue. The more nonsensical the better. You obviously lend weight to the nonsense they spew, which means you're woefully ignorant on the subject or you are complicit. The fact that you would chastise me for not engaging the bizarre denial claim seen in this thread tells me you're probably complicit.

Here's my response in its entirety. Feel free to show how I was bashing you. Good grief. I know I just asked, but again please exercise a little good faith. It's a waste of everyone's time to put up with these purposely ignorant posts of yours. He did not claim you bashed "him". You bashed his commentary on the article. To claim otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

Not in this post is wasn't, therefore your complaint is empty. You took issue that the post was not objectively reflecting the story. How about a little good faith debate from you. This other act of yours is getting old.