killjoy

Don't blame greg guys. He's gotta do what he's gotta do. S'not easy running a forum. I knew the risks when I was arguing with gerry but just like greg I gotta do what I gotta do and playing nice with a fake and a bot isn't part of it. Everytime I come here it's forty new anti-Harper threads by "grass-roots" gerry. Soon it'll be the 'gerry show'. Its his kmission to shout others down not discuss with them. Time for me to move on. L8r! PS.: Not to be a smart ass greg, but the software's not working .

It was 6 not including the ones you probably sent after I put your PM's on ignore.... And I wasn't the first, nor the last, was I gerry? Which one should I post first gerry? The one titled "Yer a lying piece of s###", or one of the others? As I read them I can actually hear you crying. The PM's are right here and they are most certainly obscene and I'm not the only one you tried this tactic with. I don't need to lie, gerry. That's your method operendi. .

norman: Thank you. This is more than possible however I don't think you know about our gerry here. This is the guy who would wholesale flood posters with dozens of obscene PM's when got into a temper-tantrum over something silly. I can tell you at least have a sense of humor norm and can at least admit it when someone has a point, (even if you still don't agree overall), but gerry here (- he can "second that" all he likes, he's not fooling anyone -) is simply faking this pretension of maturity, trust me. You like jdobbiin and, well and quite a few others are no problem even though I seriously disagree with them, but gerry is a plain Troll....nothing else. .

I'm certain of it. Search his threads. If you can find more than two that aren't about Harper in some way I'll mail you $20. Bad footwear is leading the nation into poor posture? Harper's fault. .

yeah you are starting a fight....after vowing to ignore me. (lol) You're taking an arbitrary semantic argument simply to start a fight - in fact it's not really an argument at all. You're simply pointing out the blatantly obvious that doesn't change my point in the least. Really all you've done is try a pretentious, wordier version of "Nah-uh. Is not!". I don't need your stamp of approval, especially in light of your poor english comprehension , to make the accusation that the views are conflicting and hypocritical. Naturally the idea that something exists does not automatically preclude it form being an excuse, but it is more than reasonable to point out that it's more than simply convenient to such partisan viewpoints to one minute claim one thing and claim something completely different the next and not see the contradiction. IOW, bot, no, something being real doesn't necessarily preclude something from being an excuse, NOR does it preclude the idea that you guys'll just say whatever you want, whatever sounds good at the moment and whatever makes your case sound better even if it's not very honest, does it? So really you're not saying anything at all. You're just sniping from the sidelines and cheerleading. .

lol! Hilarious. More dishonesty: You start a fight and now prod the mods into taking action. I am aware of it. If characterizing someone who simply snipes from the sidelines as a cheerleader gets me banned, oh well. If characterizing you as nothing more than a bot is not alloweed, oh well I guess I'll never be back....which is exactly what you're trying to do isn't it, Mr. Honesty. You're a prime example why the Liberals are out. My guess though is that the mods know you for the obscene PM poster and troll you are and aren't going to bend to your BS juvenile tactics. Maybe I'm wrong but oh well if I am. There's only a couple of hundred peopel on this forum. Naturally anyone banned can simply go elsewhere and considering you can't argue your way out of a paper bag I'm sure sitting here posting anti-Harper threads by yourself all day suits you ust fine. .

gerry you haven't an honest bone in your body: As pointed out numerious times by you guys the security concerns are real, not an "excuse". Here he implies that there isn't a security concern by implying that the "real" security concern is harper's "insecurity. And that's exactly what I said, bot - after all the times you guys come here to whine about security concerns, now with no more reason than it's convienent to your delusions, now all of a sudden you decide it couldn't possibly be the reason. It's it's dishonest and idiotic - the very same reasons the Liberals aren't in office anymore: they're dishonest and plain stupid. Again you demonstrate your complete dishonesty and inability to admit when someone has a point or read English properly, take your pick. You can barely read and no one's talking to you either, so shut up. I notice your vow to ignore me only applies to when you can't answer a question, and not to your simple-minded cheerleading from the sidelines. Go away bot. .

No, the poster claimed that security concerns were a false reason or hard to believe reason....after all the times you guys come here to yak about security concerns in Afghanistan....which is exactly what I said Bobo. Just STFU, ok gerry? You're little more than a Bot around here. We're all too aware of your complete inability to understand plain english without using your special "translations"..... .

lol. Well I can't accuse you of not having a decent sense of humor. I guess that's something. Cheers. .

Yes it is what he said. Now all of a sudden the idea that there could be security concerns is declared a fake when complaining about security is all you guys ever do. I dunno. You tell me. "Rage Against The Machine"? The Liberal party? Your picculi-smokin girlfriend? A 100 or more .org sites that don't know anything but won't let that stop them from yakking about it? Your conspiricy sites? Any of the barrage of books out there making their money on anotehr political consciousness that has simply become another target market? The list is endless but my money is you get most of your poitical beliefs from some 22-year-old musicians. The fact of the matter is you chant "Harper = Bush" like a mantra with nothing but wishful thinking, an unhealthy preoccupation with the US, and closed-mindedness to back it up. .

LOL! Oh - now all of a sudden there are no security concerns in Afghanistan! Another fine example of blatant dishonesty and clumsy spinning. For how long now have you guys relished the opportunity to come here and display the headline of the day about Afghanistan in an effort to point out "how bad it is" over there - how the Taliban are on the rise - how the attacks are increasing etc. etc.. Now that it doesn't fit with your story suddenly 'security concerns’ are just an "excuse". Suddenly there should be no security concerns and it’s all just a big lie and plot. Do you even know what you believe anymore? Of course you don’t. You’re told what to believe and you’re too lazy to do otherwise. I'm willing to bet most of you guys lie so much you have lost all track of what you're lying about compared to what you actually believe. Hilarious and pathetic. .

Ok but it seemed you were implying there were protests before sept.11 and then they were muted. That there were the UBIQUITIOUS and EVER PRESENT rallies here and there I never disputed. There would've been rallies against intervention in Rwanda - Im sure many would claim it was all about oil - so that doesn't mean anything. The FACT is that nothing really got rolling until Harper came in and it jumped 10-fold the moment the Liberals left power. You guys can go right ahead and deny it all you want . jdobbin you're about the only one here I'd believe if they said they were genuine - but I think you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's fashion for most. .

Um we didn't send any troops to Afghanistan until after sept. 11 so what you are you talking about? No, they were "muted" until the liberals left office. lol. No they DID NOT grow in "intensity" throughout the Liberal government rule - what country were you living in? They grew in intensity the moment Harper got in -- even BEFORE the LONG PLANNED move to southern Afghanistan....just the same way they were calling him a Bush-bot even before he got into office. The peace movement is nothing more than an opposition vehicle. 10% of them are authentic - the rest are just liberal "puppets" (lol!) trying to impress their picculi-smoking girlfriends and recreate some role for themselves based on their romatic views of the '60's movement. .

So speaks the resident grassrooter for the liberals. Coming from you that's hilarious. No, everything I said is true and you know it. .

Dunno what you're implying with that, but the bottom line here is that the Canadian "peace movement" of late didn't aim at Afghanistan until the liberals left power. Now that they're out they use it like any opposing party does and yes, the so-called "peace movement" has it's origins in their camp. ....and yes, it is fashion inspired for the most part....it certainly doesn't base itself in any truth. As I said, like religious fanatics they simply regurgitate whatever they're told to regurgitate with a complete lack of any of the "critical thinking" they like to pride themselves for. THey just repeat a mantra over and over again "Harper is Bush! Harper is Bush" like a child on the playground "So-and-so's got cooties!" They don't need any proof. Their proof he's a Bush-bot is that he's not liberal. And I reinterate again: The only apparent difference between the liberals and the conservatives that makes Harper a bush-puppet is that he apparrently won't call Bush a moron in public. .