Figleaf

Grewal editted the tapes to make them present a story that in their totality was not the case. And the chain of events around that matter suggested that Steve and other tory high-ups knew it was a fraud and allowed it to proceed. If it is eventually found that Holland has doctored the fax before releasing it the way Grewal doctored the tapes, then you might have some kind of point. It is not illegal to open a mysterous box left unclaimed in your office for years. Cite an applicable law if you disagree.

Point 1: How do people know what 24 Sussex Drive is? They are interested in politics. MPs are heavily interested in politics by definition. Ah look, it's comedy hour again. It was not clearly marked. It was unclearly marked. And so what? What makes it illegal to open a box that's been floating around your office, unclaimed, for years? This is such a specious dodge. Look, the point of this discussion is that there was a fax found that suggests a crime may have been commited regarding the resignation of MP Hart. Pathetic sidetracking into box opening suggests a certain desperation for a subject change. Faulty analogy.

I've seen the news. He's ACCUSED. Accused is not proven. And right now he's being held, incommunicado, without trial, by the accusers. Again, I put the very simple question, where is the proof, even any evidence, that connects these men to any crimes? You know, I honestly can't believe that you guys don't understand this concept. You don't imprison people without trial if you think you're interested in justice.

Well i could have, but since we were talking about Masculinity I did not think i needed to check for understanding of the male anatomy. Hey, I'm just dickin' around.

If there is evidence, why can't these dudes be given a trial? Since when do enemy combatants get trials? When have they ever had trials? I suppose when it was decided they weren't prisoners of war but instead, fighters in a criminal terrorist organization. But criminals get trials, don't they?

You've gotta be kidding.

Who did each of these men kill and where is your proof? Yes. But DID he kill an American soldier? Where is your proof? So you say. But then where is it? Self-hatred must tax your spirit greatly.

Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation? What a stupid question. Stupid answer, rather. Who in Gitmo killed anyone? You don't know, do you? You have no proof, do you? So, you're just talking bullsh!t.

Thats irrelevant... Not sure what elephants have to do with ... That's the second time in a week you've rolled out that same lame pun. Time for some new (and better) material M. Dancer!

Might have something to do with the British hostages having not actively been trying to kill them unlike the ones held at Gitmo.... Who in Gitmo tried to kill who? Where's the proof of that accusation?

It's safe to infer that he could have infered whose docs were in the box. But that doesn't mean he did anything wrong looking in it (if he did). While Con supporters flail about this silly attack on Holland, it's astounding hypocrisy to ignore the implications of the fax.

1. I don't agree that the box in the video was clearly marked. It's markings were anything but clear (to anyone other than Parliament Hill movers maybe). 2. I don't know that the fax came from that box. 3. I don't accept that it would have been wrong to look in the box. BTW, Stock should step aside to avoid accusations of bias.

It's only a non-issue for me because I trust the thorough investigation of the RCMP regarding this exact matter. Do you think the RCMP were shown the fax that Holland has uncovered? If not, it's new evidence and merits a new investigation.

And it seems like Stock is working hard to ensure there are no convictions in the Conservative party. That is just SO out to lunch I don't know why you keep writing it. Well, I may have an idea about why... Anyway, there are not serious indications of any wrongdoing on Holland's part. But the fax he revealed does tell us pretty clearly that someone did something that looks like it runs against the political corruption laws in engineering the resignation of MP Hart. Day should step aside until the RCMP get a good look at the situation at least.

Psssssst, Dancer ... you needa preview yer posts.

I can agree with all but what I put in bold. Her novels, especially Atlas Shrugged, are plodding affairs, chockablock with pseudo-philosophical boilerplate.

All in the name of the New American Century, right?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2047128,00.html What an excellent article! I hope George Bush and his minions are happy now that they've reduced American conduct to a standard lower than the Islamic Republic of Iran. What a great accomplishment.

Thank you Wendy, for posting all this excellent material. No doubt you have noticed how certain posters tend to angrily deny and froth at the mouth and yet fail to say anything substantive in response. You should regard this behaviour as proof of your success in puncturing a construct of vapid and mistaken beliefs.

1. Do you mean Liberals? 2. I'm sure the Liberals would agree with you about Hart.

If you attempted to "call me on duplicity" at that time, you were lying. As for posting that PM, feel free. You richly earned any approbrium you received. As I recall you didn't post much for a while after that ... how come? Becasue when you get beaten in an argument, you go crying to Greg... Please indicate an instance where I have been beaten in an argument. If you can. Then, follow that up with anyplace wherein that caused me to 'cry' to Greg. In fact, Greg has advised posters to report incidents of rule violations (rather than responding in kind). As a respectful guest, I follow Greg's request. I has nothing whatsoever to do with how a discussion has fared, and everything to do with how a poster's post reflects complaince or not with the rules. Your attack on me for simply following Greg's request is bizarre and peurile. Why are you hijacking the thread with such nonsense? Because I switched off your abusive PMs? There is no anti-semitism in my arguments. I defy you to indicate any instance of such. I do find it offensive to be falsely accused in that fashion. Do you intend to stalk me and troll with such lies on every thread? I have no idea what you are talking about, or who you are purporting to quote there ... it's certainly not me. If you wish to confront me with some statement I made in the past, good luck, but please don't lie about it.

No, you have averred, citing numerous irrelevancies, to a totally faulty view of the implications of UNSC decisions on the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, you have ignored my request for you to support your opinion (even though you quoted it). No. I have responded clearly that your interpretation of the implications of UNSC resolutions is mistaken. It's curious that, even with my posts #322 and #326 readily available for you and everyone else to read, you think its viable to pretend that they don't exist or don't reflect the contents that is obviously within them. No, again, you are merely ignoring the facts I have provided you, and reciting your opinion, rather than even attempting to rebut my comments. Very tiresome. Please NOTE: There does not need to be a UNSC resolution declaring something to be illegal for it to actually be illegal. You said it, not me.

Are you trying to 'play the anti-semitism card'? :yawn: How tedious (and dishonest).

reported Again, I urge you to READ the rules of this forum. FYI, The above quote is not in any way a violation.

If you attempted to 'call me on duplicity' at that time, you were lying. As for posting that PM, feel free. You richly earned any approbrium you received. As I recall you didn't post much for a while after that ... how come?