gerryhatrick

Is there an association for Man-girl love? Oops, hope I don't get called a heterophobe! You're initial assumption is a little lacking, so I don't see why you'd believe a "controversial" discussion would ensue. Maybe an argumentative one. You pretty much made a troll post. Have fun.

Not being a supporter of Harper, I very much hope he does rule like he has a majority. He was elected on Liberal corruption, not his platform. I can't wait to see the same sex marriage vote! My prediction is another election within 18 months. People are already wondering WTF is up with Harper (shaking his kids hands....gratuitous anti-americanism) and that's after just one speach! Liberals will have done thier "time out" in the eyes of the public, and the election will become one of merits. So far, it looks like a sock puppet could defeat Harper if the issue becomes merit.

You are wrong on many levels. It's not important that "western militaries" dig up what they plant. Besides the fact I highly doubt the truth of that in all cases, it's irrelavent. The fact that they are thrown about like bird seed by "third world riff-raff" is enough of a reason to ban them. Are you aware of the definition of a WMD? Land mines, being indiscriminate and killing multiple people over periods extending past the conflict are a WMD. If the USA was courageous and principled enough to join in a ban I AM SURE they have the technology to replace the advantage served by landmines. Do you doubt that? If they joined the fight against them and threw thier weight/influence behind getting rid of them the supply would dry up in many areas of the world. As well, your point about the Russians and Chinese is unclear. Are you saying it's OK for the USA because those nations haven't signed? The USA is attempting to increase it's stature in the world. Acknowledging the incredible civilian pain that landmines cause and working to get rid of them and pledging not to use them would go FAR to increasing that badly damaged stature. And your final comments - unquoted above - politicizing this issue are disgusting. You should be ashamed. Is it only "Liberal idiots" who care about the killing and maiming of innocent children and other civilians? By that can we assume that "Conservative idiots" don't give a sh$t about that? Come on, it's not a Liberal/Conservative issue, don't try to make it one.

You don't get it? I guess that explains why it doesn't matter to you. Keep your eyes open. Maybe someday you'll "get it".

When used responsibly? You mean, when armies go and dig up every last one they plant? It's a powerful ad, you must admit. Soccer mom? And the final text is absolutely correct. It is not an "emotional argument" to say that nations like the US wouldn't tolerate them if they were knocking off thier own kids.

watch here. I'm speechless.

Hellooooo? Tin foil hat smilie in the menu please??

This site needs a tin-foil hat smilie!

Right. The same Free Press that called for a Tory majority? The numbers on that site quote 42-3 op/ed pieces with 32 being the Sun. That means that the Free Press was at least 10-3 pro-Con op/eds.

"irrelevant". Who decides that? CBC has produced many great TV series and programs. If you're going to talk about "market share/financial earner" then can you provide any source for your claims? I would have thought selling Degrassi alone would outweigh Hockey Night in Canada. That's not a claim, just an opinion.

I agree with your point about editorial staff, but check out his numbers. 30+ from one paper in 14 days??? Editorials are editorials, but shouldn't there be even some small attempt at balance from the opinion pieces? It was an election, after all. 42 to 3! That's beyond editorial bias, that's institutionalized bias.

Did you not also ask about Frank McKenna? Don't pretend that you haven't steered off topic. Please do not accuse me of "avoiding" questions anymore. I do not avoid anything. Such accusations - which you've repeatedly made - are only intended to be argumentative. I direct you to the forum rules. The answer to your last question is I do not know.

It is clearly answered here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=4986&st=45 Why continue to troll for the same answer in this topic? edit: test to see if edit inserts edit note.

I've debated you in good faith and all you produce is insults. It's not neccessary to admit your incorrect about something, but please refrain from insulting me. I'm not going to stoop to it, so why continue?

Yes, I made a mistake. I hadn't expected you to be clamouring for an answer within a few minutes of your first post, and assumed that the last one was editted to remove the insult. As it turns out, your insult remains. I assume the moderators here are lax?

How? Because one is a negative, and one is a positive. You took the positive comment by the man, and turned it into a negative. Thus the proof that you look to insult the man. If it were not the case, you would gladly admit your interpretation is incorrect. It's not "nuanced" to make the distinction between seeking balance and seeking to retain balance.

http://www.allpoliticsnow.com/ A guy would have to look at the papers themselves. I know the Sun is rightwing, but the Free Press also? These numbers are damning to say the least. This is this topic. I've answered you, Mr. shoop, about the Frank McKenna question in the appropriate topic.

tml12, you need to read my last post to you. Gerry is not predicting them true, he is associating them directly to what the Ambassador said. It has nothing to do what shoop or yourself think. shoop could profess that Frank is not taking the job because he's worried that some past crime will be uncovered. That could be a belief of his. In this case he's claiming that the Ambassador said he was refusing the job because he was "looking for balance". Now he admits a difference between "looking for balance" and looking to avoid an imbalance. Yet he sees no difference. This strongly supports the claim he looks to insult the man.

...

Don't accuse me of flaming when you engage troll/insults like this. Oh, the difference is just "nuanced", is it? I will gladly explain for you shoop. In the first case the phrase logically indicates the balance is missing. If someone is "looking" for something, it means they don't have it currently. If you seek to avoid losing something (in this case, balance), then obviously you possess it.

tml12, we're just having a basic misunderstanding. Hopefully this will clear it up. If shoop had said something along the lines of "underlying reasons" or "the reasons I think" then how you characterize him would stand. Instead he said "supposed", which you define as "Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence." He was pretending to represent Frank McKemnas given reasons....the "supposed" ones which we can take at face value or not. He's admitted as much a short time ago in regards to the mistaken "find balance in life" reason he's attributed to the Ambassadors words. He got mixed up on that one due to his confusion with tense. See above.

Ha ha, quite so! In fact, I did label your "supposed reasons" that Frank Mckenna didn't pursue the Liberal leadership as BS akin to the political BS we've had to put up with all election. To be exact though, you claimed I was "telling people to cut the BS". In truth, all I said is I'm tired of the BS, and it would be in reference to your particular "supposed reasons" anyway, and you're just one person, not people. thx.

This does not support what you are claiming though. The context is missing. He is not referring to his time as the US Ambassador. Thus the word "then". And the word "would" indicates that there is an "if" at play...that being "IF" he were to become the Liberal leader. Nothing in there indicates that your claim that he's "looking for balance in his life" is true, since your claim explicitely implies that he currently does not have balance in his life. Obviously he is seeking to avoid imbalancing his life, and thus his decision.

To say he's "looking for balance" means he's lacking it now. It sounds like you're just wanting to insult the man. Maybe because of his politics? What, specifically, did he say that allows you to claim you're summing him up to say he rejected the job because he's "looking for balance"? Sounded to me like he is very happy with his life. Sounded like he loved serving Canada and was sad about having to leave his position.

I watched the press conference...and didn't hear that myself. I didn't realize shoop spoke for multiple people here! When he said "supposed reasons", I understood that to mean the reasons given by the ambassador. I have been since corrected by shoop and understand it's only his own opinions. And yours also, you say. It was my mistake. Certainly I understand what debate is for, and am happy to engage with good faith. I don't take things at "face value" always. I'm very critical. I heard the guy explain why he wasn't interested in the job and he struck me as very honest and his reasons as quite understandable. Maybe you can help me with something though....when shoop said "supposed reasons", the word "supposed" implies he's questioning anothers reasons...not that they are reasons he procured and believes. Why would he use the word "supposed" if they are the reasons he believes? Wouldn't he present then as the reasons he believes...rather than "supposed" ones?