Figleaf

Treason???Gave aid and comfort to North Korean and Palestinian enemies. When? How? :crickets:

What do YOU think?

Considering the uapologetic outrageousness of most everything Steve's government does, that's not so surprising.

That would be bigotry. Bulgarians were not abused by the set of all Muslims, but only by certain Muslims.

Holy incomprehensibly-strange-double-standard, SAman!

I feel that moment by moment it is getting stronger. I don't think so. You just need to respect the rules we all follow here.

Holland should sue Ezra dry. That's libel. There's no way what Holland did is "stealing". It's disgusting that anyone in the media could get away with that kind of shi7.

Right. It's a new way of packing that the the Hill has discovered: ea... I take that to mean the answer is no, he never said that. In all this wild speculation, it seems as likely as anything else that he simply used a leftover box for some documents he found. The accusers of Holland seem to claim a HUGE amount of inside info on 'how things work' and 'what he'd know' and similar crapola. Meanwhile, we know that Hart, the MP who doesn't deny getting a benefit for stepping down, is implicated in a 'negotiation' that axiomatically had someone on the other end of it. Someone close to Stockwell Day, perhaps.

My dear chap, in case you haven't figured it out yet, 'running to mommy' as you call it, or reporting a post, as I call it is: 1) The required substitute for responding in kind on this forum. When you insult another poster, my first inclination is to belittle you and call you names that would so shrivel you that you'd fall in obsessive slave-love with me. But thankfully, the forum rules demand that I not indulge that impulse. Instead, I sublimate it by reporting you. 2) A coup counted Score on you by me !huzzah!, each time your arguments fail you so badly. Now, as for the rest of your post, should I take that as pleading for mercy?

Please qv my comment on possession vs. privacy in the post above. If he did that, it might improve your argument. So tell me how you would know that? Why didn't the tories ask for the box or send the movers back? How could he know the stuff in the box was supposed to be private? But what the heck do you know about it? Did he ever say he found the documents IN the boxes??

Same answer. A note simply identifying possession would not be a claim to privacy, especially when the box was left unclaimed for over a year. Coming from someone who's okay with apparent corrupt breaches of the criminal code, and ministers leading the police who are investigating them, that's a comment I won't take to heart.

Ah, the old appeal to group strength. Yes, that's my problem ... Won't stand up for myself. A real shrinking violet, that's me.

Reported.

Your assertions about the prisoners implicitly accept the unproven accusations. And you implicity reject them, going so far to suggest with out anything to support your absudities that they have no evidence against them. I don't reject the accusations, I am asking that they put forth the evidence. They have yet to offer ANY evidence, let alone adequate evidence, after all this time makes me question whether such evidence exists, but they could fix that by just giving the evidence they say they have. Meanwhile, it is against decency and human rights to imprison people without trials.

BTW, excellent post, Slavik.

Of course how stupid of me, I thought the Liberals were in power in 2004, and the Conservatives got in just last January in the year 2006. I guess it just seemed like last year. 2006 2004 Can you say I'm an idiot? Holy crap! I'm an idiot. It just seems like forever, I guess. Alright, so the box was abandoned for just over a year. That weakens my argument slightly, but I don't think it changes anything really.

Exactly. They could belong to someone in my office, so what I'd do is look to where they were to be delivered. No need to open the box. If I couldn't work a map, I'd ask someone else to teach me. I've done this many times when people misplace stuff around in my office. Never once have I had the need to go through boxes to find out where to deliver them. The fact is, even if as you say, Holland isn't a smart person, why did he have to go through the whole entire box? Did he have to go through the entire boxes contents to find out where they were to be delivered? Your whole argue is ridiculous. Even if the markings on the box weren't enough to tell him that boxes were to be moved from the OLO to the PMO, the first page or two in the box would've. If you think it's the Conservatives fault because they left the boxes behind, just say that. But don't say that Holland didn't know they were the Conservatives. Anyone that has worked in an office building and gone through a move like this knows that argument is erroneous. Let's review the facts, shall we? 1. The the box was left behind three years ago. The tories never called asking for it; they never sent the movers back for it. The tories had abandoned it. 2. The label on the box was four years old too, and was filled in with a mover's code. It says nothing that Holland can be expected to take notice of. Boxes that the Liberals brought in with them would have the same kind of label. Opening the box was something anyone might do. 3. EVEN IF the box was labelled PROPERTY OF STOCKWELL DAY , it wouldn't have been wrong to open it. 4. The box contained a fax that implies that a benefit was paid to MP Hart to quit his seat in order to let Stockwell Day run there. This is contrary to one or more of the provisions of the Criminal Code under Corruption and Disobedience (ss.119-130, see esp. ss.119, 121, 124). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...al=50&length=50 5. Any sane comparison of the gravity of the 'offense' in #3 with the offense in #4 cannot help but conclude that running off at the mouth about #3 while ignoring #4 is ludicrous, bizarre, and explicable only in terms that are unflattering.

Abandoned?.......in a room.......for several years?.........er, how long has Holland occupied that room? Did he move in before they moved out? The building was taken over by the Liberals when they fell into opposition. The tories were the previous occupants. the elections was in 2004, three years ago.

Good point. I would agree with differentiating belief in a 'God' from a belief in the tenets of a religion, and I can also see how one might believe in some definitions of 'God' (not religion) and still be consistent in a dedication to science.

Spelling error reported.

I almost wish I knew what you were talking about. Almost. Even if true (it's not, CB and I have argued vigorously), your complaint would have no merit. I have no duty to monitor the board for all transgressions. I simply report the ones I detect. Again, I remind you that your remedy is to simply abide by the rules. Ah, so you do have a prior relationship. It sounds to me like you two want a forum where you can run roughshod over others, toss insults around, and generally make yourselves unpleasant. I think you'll find that the rest of us here aren't interested in that sort of behaviour.

It was one, as it turns out unstable, Conservative MP. If only that was true. The timeline of events and statements made by other Conservatives, including Steve, indicated quite clearly that they knew the tapes were not complete yet they allowed the accusations to stand and to continue. It was a shameful episode that turns out to have foreshadowed other cases where Steve and Co. made or allowed scurrilous attacks against fellow Parliamentarians. ? What did Holland do wrong?

Your assertions about the prisoners implicitly accept the unproven accusations.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/colli...tary/index.html Scientically, this fellow is no slouch, and no literal interpreter either. He easily it seems balanced his faith with reason, discarding what is catagorically not true against what is rationally and emotionally fits. Rationally and emotionally ?!?!? Yeah, right, that's excellent science. --Not. It's too bad this chap's emotions have led him into the folly of thinking science and religion can mutually accomodate. What kind of religion is still a religion and not science, if you accept that the science can at any time supercede the religion? And that question can turn around the other way too. It may be possible for a human mind to believe that it believes both at the same time, but it's not possible to be correct in that belief, by the very nature of the two.

Oh, nice temper tantrum, Scott. BTW, I notice you and M.Dancer stick together thru thick and thin. Are you "spartan" with eachother by any chance? Reported What for?