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. .

Um, yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Go find one "democracynow.org" or "undergrounddemocracy.org" site that isn't funded or run by the democrats. They ALL are....including AlternativeRadio. Anyone over 30 who's been paying an iota of attention in the past 20 years can see the obvious. No. As OBVIOUSLY (plain English, dude) written in my post I compared the others to the movement in the 60's that was much more grassroots and authentic....that you bring it up as a comparison only proves EVERY SINGLE THING I SAID. .

Because it as much as it tries to pretend, it is not a grassroots based spontaneous protest movement. It is a tool of whatever opposing party is in the country in question - so the actual here's or there's of a given conflict are no longer examined - beyond the pretentious claim that it is - and instead is the simple nay-saying of whatever the ruling (and supposedly responsible) party is. Just watch the republicans do it as soon as a democrat is in office. Remember Somalia and Yugoslavia? Subsequently the "peace movement" has become little more than the refuge for terminal doom-sayers and fashion-bots and wannabies who wish to capture what has become the cliché romance of the '60's movement. There is no reality to it. It's become blunt partisan tactics and simple commercial sensationalism. A farce. A comedy. That's what's 'evil' about it. It lies as much as anyone. "Peace" really has nothing to do with it. .

If you don't call the US president a moron in public then you're his puppet. This country is getting really, really stupid, and it ain’t the conservative boogymen. I mean it's so ironic someone chanting drum-circle dribble about Harper being Bush's puppet, yet the vast majority of these people are simply mindlessly mimicking the "seattleUnderground.org"-culture of their favorite pastime: the US. They're just simple cut-and-paste views from the US itself! I mean they just say it over and over and over again: "He's a puppet." It's like some kind of religion. "It is because I believe it is! and I don't need anything else." Everything they bring forward is nonsense for the simple reason they started comparing him to Bush before he even got in, before he did a single thing. Unbelievable. .

The worst, ugliest most nightmarish thing about it is that there really isn't any "what to do about it". Sure people will debate and maybe even try a few decent ideas but in the end, and we all know this at our core, the kind of extreme cult-like fanaticism of al qaeda and the students of Islam simply can't be countered. They call that a strength. You can't reason with them. They're not stupid either. They clue in to the excuses people in the west like to make for them and they work with it. It's like art imitating life or visa versa. They hear our attempts to empathize with their "view" and they go with it, but underneath it all is the undeniable volatile theme of religious dominance, to the point of global law. To many if you do not wish to convert, well then death is the best thing for you really. You should be happy. All you can do is shake your head. The viciousness and willingness to kill of one side will, sooner or later, only equal the viciousness or willingness to kill of the other. That's not an opinion, but go ahead and argue it. It's an equation. Like oils separating from water the viciousness of one side is sooner or later matched by the other...if it gets that desperate. There is no 'smart' way to fight that kind of fanaticism. I know it P.O's a lot of people to hear that but it's true. They want their boot on your neck. I'm truly sorry so many liars used that truth to lie, because it's true all the same. I fear we're not really going to see that in time, and really who can blame us? It's so very hard for many of us to relate to that level. So many of them just want to kill you. They think have a 1000 reasons and they only need one: salvation, Allah. The full effect of the global industrial revolution is finally settling for good into the last reaches of the planet. This means the old power structures must cope with this tsunami, and in the case of theocracies (ish), they must play the religious hard line or surrender ground to keep power/significance (like the Church did). This will not end if we leave Afghanistan. It won't end if they leave Iraq. It's not going to stop even if Israel evaporates. It won't matter if we all drive solar cars. It won't even slow down. I fear this has only just begun. This past 5-15 years; only prelude. In 5-10 years we may all be screaming for their blood just like them. What to do indeed.

That wasn't the story when it was Rwanda....unless of course something was done about that, then it would be the same story. Ships are safer in harbor. That's not why we have them. .

I knew it was Harper's fault. .

Doesn't sting in the least. It's true. Well "shambles" isn't the truth but it is too small. t actually runs quite well considering it's size and budget. Besides, there's not an army in the world that can defend North America by man-power. North America is defended by nuclear deterance - nothing more. It doesn't change the fact that if we were invaded and the US came to "help" they'd only do it out of self-interest which means they might very well be willing to make the entire nation a wasteland just to protect themselves. That's not really defending 'us', and that we've benefitted from being next door to you isn't something we need to thank you for; that's simply the luck of geography. Besides what would've happened if we'd been arming ourselves to the teeth (nuclear - everything) for the past 50 years? You'd get paranoid and consider us a threat. That's the truth, Ruth and you know it. I mean it's hilarious watching some of you Americans try and paint us, even now, as some kind of socialist enemy of the US when it's blatantly self-evident we like you more than anyone else on the planet does. .

But...but...but....Canadians are pacifists! Seriosuly: thanks for posting this. .

yyyyyep. .

Of course that's the same argument you used for Harper but whatever. We've come to expect that from you. .