jdobbin

I have no idea how many additions there are for the Star. However, I can't think of any major media groups who didn't report the story. I think I made it clear from the very beginning that in the absence of knowing for certain, people turned to the video. My view is that Harper should have been better briefed on protocol so that the issue of the communion would not have even come up. His staff have been letting him down all too often.

It depends. If the Liberals make gains and the Tories are still in a minority, I think it is Harper who will be leaving, don't you?

Since he wasn't associated with the referendum or the Clarity Act, I don't know that Ignatieff would had that baggage. Moreover, if Ignatieff had been leader, it is entirely possible that Lapierre would have stayed as MP in Outremont. Lapierre had plenty of Jewish support but he appealed widely to most federalists in the riding.

And some on the right are saying Liberals did it and even naming names. Lifesite has already gotten a letter from lawyers. We'll see if they wish to continue. And Fife is being asked for specifics as well. Who are his sources? And if he believes Liberals might have something to do it, which Liberals has he asked? Has he asked the party leader, president or strategists? Stop making innuendo about Liberals starting this all up or I'll continue to call coward on the ones who seem hesitant to put a name to the conspiracy. As for the Star, I generally don't read it because it is Toronto-centric. Others don't read it because it leans Liberal and states so. Still, if you are going to say the Star didn't say anything, you should at least look first: http://www.thestar.com/article/673262 This is one little line? Plus, they had the original CP story everyone else had: http://www.thestar.com/article/672973 Plus, it was written about early on the Star blogs: Now, that is a few mentions. I expect a correction just as Steven Janke had to correct himself by saying that the original story had been a lead on the CBC National News.

Personally, I don't believe it because it would be too easy to track back but it does make a good story. My view is that the journalists on the paper speaking to a lawyer was incentive enough to take a look at the story and retract it. I guess you can wish for it. I have seen less dissension in Liberal ranks than at any time in recent years.

I said from the very beginning that Dion would always be associated with the Clarity Act and he was deeply unpopular in Quebec the day he became leader.

It is probably the reason the Liberals have been in government more often. I believe that is exactly what the government was arguing. Harper was threatening an election over it. I don't know that anything would have been decided but I know for certain all sides would blame the Liberals for it. I agree. My feeling is that Harper will only do things his way and if he wants to call an election over a private member's bill, there is nothing to stop him. I don't Ignatieff can let it happen again. It is why I think an election is coming in the fall. One of the other side will pull the trigger. That doesn't seem to be what the media wants. It is the first summer I've seen in a long time where they want the leaders campaigning out there like an election is already happening.

The Liberals came up in that riding in the last election despite a very slow start. The NDP vote was down nearly 8% It will be interesting to see the results will be with a more popular Ignatieff as leader of the party. Dion was a non-starter for many in the riding. The Jewish community there appeared to come back to the Liberals from the time of the byelection.

Just noting that "having it both ways" argument I see. The Liberals are to blame either way election or not. My feeling is that there going to be an election this fall. Harper will call it although he would most likely want to wait till after the Olympics or the G8 meeting to do it. I don't think he wants to fall on a confidence motion though and he knows the other parties will not be interested in letting him come off a high of free publicity. Ignatieff does want to back down again. I expect that his only timeframe now is going to be this fall.

How many times has Harper (the Bully) asked for one? Why should he? He never said anything about it from the beginning and other MPs from the Liberal party such as Dominic Leblanc didn't think it was an issue to accept communion in the Church. No Liberal MP ever suggested that Harper pocketed the wafer. Name the activist. It seems to be the standard Tory political method to suggest that there is a conspiracy out to get them and that the Liberals masterminded it all. I think that is the domain of the Tories to ask for names. You seem to know who it is already. Why not reveal who the shadowy strategist is?

What a bunch of clowns they are. Here is how most people were introduced to the story: http://www.windsorstar.com/Life/Harper+acc...0777/story.html Tories denied it right away and said it was Liberals right from the beginning that were making up the story. Some have even named names lately although the lawsuits should quickly have some climb down from their high horse. In the absence of not knowing what happened, people started looking at the Youtube video. They are still going to it. If it was a TV show, it would be among the most popular for the month of July. The newspaper has retracted the story but now Tories think they can get mileage by fanning the idea of it being a Liberal conspiracy. Well, don't be shy, name who you think was responsible. Don't be cowards.

I'm afraid you are wrong. Mulroney sold them to the Dutch who are using them in Afghanistan. We have gone over this before. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/on-the...icopters-02390/

Just made an announcement that it is looking more like an election in the fall. Or did you not see him on TV or the Internet? ----- Name names. Let's see how how tough you are. Who in the Liberal party did it? I call you a coward if you can't name the person or persons you think are responsible.

Here is the increase in the donor pool. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbyt...eff_effect.html

Elections Canada reports the numbers July 30 or July 31 in the afternoon. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbyt...eff_effect.html You still think it is all a big lie?

But you keep saying that business is to stand up and say no and go to an election. Or is that we shouldn't go to an election? Or is it the Liberals are the only party to blame for an election or not having an election while all the other parties are blameless?

The whole thing wouldn't have been an issue if: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=439367

And Fife is likely getting a letter from lawyers. Let's see the fur fly!

Uh, c'mon, don't be shy. You know you wanna say it. If you truly, really, honestly believe and know it then say it loud and proud.

What better way to find out who he is going to sue next? As I've said before, I'm not anonymous here. Maybe others would like to be more open and transparent.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090730/...ada_us_politics http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/30/weekly-...ok-it-twitched/ No real changes in the poll except a simple switching of places.

It is obvious that you want the exact date and hour. It is why I showed a few links to indicate that why you won't get one other than the government was determined to get it done and soon. You have seen the link a few times now. Washington Post = 8000 people. Show me your numbers for the settlements in question. Not numbers that you guess at but a specific reference to the numbers now. The Washington Post does what most newspapers do: they fact check. You don't like the numbers you are hearing so you attack me. Show me your numbers of settlers. Show me contrary numbers for the settlements. Don't guesstimate based on a report in a newspaper on one settlement that may or may not be slated for closure. I happen to believe in the Washington Post. They independently check numbers given to them. If their were contrary numbers, they would have mentioned them. As far as I can see, you are the only one saying that there is only 100 people involved. Not at all. I gave you the link from the beginning that the exact day and hour would not be announced. I happen to know that in the London talks, it was mentioned that the schedule was listed as Sorry if you don't trust the Washington Post and their ability to verify numbers. If Hamas was prepared to come to the terms of the Oslo agreement which you said was a success, it would mean big difference. Or do you disagree? Illegal settlements isn't their main problem. Israel existing is. If they don't agree to Israel's existence at all and are prepared to send children out as bombs, they will be identified as a terrorist organization. You seem to think that settlements is the only thing that motivates them. It isn't. If Israel was to exist, they would still be under attack because the goal is to take all Israel.

At winning lawsuits. He certainly does. I can't think of one that he has lost. So let's see someone continue this line of attacks because this is Kinsella's reaction this morning: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/ Kinsella's lawyers have contacted those that are making accusations this morning. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/30/waferga...cts/#more-73514 Let's see if that puts a damper on things in this forum since it is very likely that he will continue to have his lawyers contact websites about libel.

I'm sure Kinsella is getting read to sue and win. Like he always does.

You love them when Harper uses them. Let's be plain. Name the person you think is making the accusation and let the lawsuits fly. There was one thing we know for certain: what was Harper doing accepting communion at a Roman Catholic funeral in the first place? As I said before, doesn't he have protocol staff to help with this or are they call quitting on him?