Who's Doing What?

Sure, but it wasn't like she had just been elected only days before. Plus her new party hadn't just finished a campaign condemming such actions. There are differences. Um it was the CPC who set the bar so high, not anyone else. If they are having trouble living up to the standards they set for themselves to bad. Furthermore if they are getting called on not living up to their own standards, they should suck it up, instead of complaining about the Left-wing Liberal media. That whole idea of the Liberal media is a joke seeing as how the majority of the media openly supported Harper and the CPC during the last election. Then why watch the CBC? You should have watched the CTV Harper lovefest, it had been already going on for weeks.

Quit attacking me on the boards, and it stops... Sheesh.

That's because WDW is just here to attack me and try and make lame points about *bully* behaviour despite his own behaviour. For example ... Just makes stuff up. Provides no corroboration or evidence... Let's get back to the topic please. Here's your evidence Ricki. Enjoy. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It's too funny reading Wikipedia as the conservative gospel. Uhh, maybe both you jerks should read the context of the quote from Wikipedia. Are either of you denying the veracity of the quote??? The Star has used *Proudly Liberal* as an unofficial motto for year. It was in Zerb's blog a couple weeks ago even. I'm not surprised that either of you turned it into a chance to attack. WDW attacked me over it because his obsession with me is just strange and creepy. He has been warned about it, yet keeps on going. Hiti, Wikipedia is conservative gospel??? wtf?

Things I like about Harper: Tough on Gun Crime. Stance on Afghanistan. Hasn't been stupid enough to force an election yet. Now give me my prize.

Um... No. You see like every bully you see any disagreement with you as an attack and yet you attack others personally all the time. Heck you just called me a jerk yesterday or the day before. But you wouldn't consider that a personal attack would you?

When is very relevant. Vancour citizens thought they were electing a Liberal, not a Conservative. But hypocricy is still hypocrisy, and the CPC has been at it from the start. Paranoid much? Don't know about admirably. He has been a Liberal in all but name.

Of course he is. But somebody who isn't *blindly* partisan could say something good about our PM. At least he deleted that creepy stalkerish signature... Creepy? What like threatening to continuously keep sending someone PM's unless they bend to your will? I think you have some issues there RB.

Yes, you aren't blindly partisan, but there is an *obvious* lack of Conservative morality. No wonder you can't properly identify hypcocrisy, you can't even spell the word. Who's Doing What is blindly anti-Harper regardless of whether or they are Liberal. That is something you cannot prove. Regardless of my posts.

Yes, you aren't blindly partisan, but there is an *obvious* lack of Conservative morality. No wonder you can't properly identify hypcocrisy, you can't even spell the word. What a small man it takes to attack someones spelling. Nothing I haven't come to expect from you. I'm afraid it is your blind partisanship which blinds you to the shortcomings of the CPC. Especially when they are the ones chanting how they are so moraly superior. As soon as they come to power they act no different than the Liberals. If you can't see that I would suggest scheduling an eye exam.

Hmmm, seems like the bigger joke is the Liberals. They are saying "the Conservatives are morally superior to us but not by a lot." Liberal partisans are the only ones who see the Conservatives as lacking because they aren't much, much, much morally superior to the Liberals. Swing voters are daily being convinced that the Conservatives *are* morally superior to the Liberals. That is why we will win the next election. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not a Liberal and I am not blindly partisan unlike most on these boards. You seemed to have missed the point, which is the Conservatives are the ones saying they are morally superior and everytime they are questioned on the obvious lack of their own morality, they simply point to the worst of the Liberal corruption and say " But we're not as bad as this." The joke is still the Hypocracy of the CPC.

There are two major differences between the two instances. 1. Belinda did not switch parties days after she was elected. 2. The Conservatives had just finished running a campaign on ethics and railing against the very same behaviour from the Liberals. ---------------------------- Again the CPC conveiently blames the media for blowing things out of proportion, when it was the CPC themselves who set the moral bar so high in the first place with the campaign they ran. If you are going to shout from the mountain top how you are morally superior, don't be surprised when you are held to superior standards. This whole "But we're not as bad as the Liberals" that the CPC conveniently falls back on is a joke. The CPC spent months telling Canada how not only were they morally superior to the Liberals, but how they were so different from the Liberals. So far they haven't proven either. If anything the CPC is looking more like the old Liberal party everyday.

So what? Anyone with eyes can see the Americans have been the ones spending billions on their military while Canada has reduced theirs. Have we had a free ride? Sure, maybe. It still does not eliminate the fact that Canada has been involved in peacekeeping around the world. Why you would ignore the sacrifices made those men and women and trivialize it as some "Liberal myth" is unfathomable.

It's not partisan, you're right. Only the Liberals are pulling out the "peacekeeping" card when historically Canada has not been known to play such a role. Are you saying Canada has not been known for Peacekeeping?

But it is the behaviour the Tories used to accuse the Liberals of. Time for the new CPC catch phrase: "But we're not as bad as the Liberals." Which in all honesty, it isn't nearly as bad as the Liberal ads from the last election. However, I like how they ran a campaign on ethics and then expect not to be held to a higher standard.

You people making this out to be a Left vs. Right thing are cracked. This is not a partisan issue. The more you try to portay it as such, the more foolish you look.

Most certainly.

The Ad I saw wasn't too bad. It doesn't look good on Dion but it was a far cry from "Soldiers in the streets".

Everybody knows the only TRUE source of factual information is Wikipedia. All hail Stephen Colbert. Seriously, if I'm looking for facts I Google it, and do my own research.

Ergo, it is clear that most of the right wing is pro-war? No actually that is an incorrect assumtion. What it should be is: It is clear that most pro-war people are Right-wing. Small change but it makes a world of difference to the meaning.

So? That still doesn't even mean most "left-wingers" are anti-war. Whatever, it is your own arguments that your blanket statements undermine.

Stopped in to see my landlord the other day. He was watching the Springer show, where they were freeing hookers from their pimps. The Pimp actually had his name tattooed on the one hookers butt, as an tag of ownership. Some nice tattoo artists in the audience offered free removal if she left her pimp. (They ended up covering the name with a black panther.) Pimps beat and abuse these girls. Get them hooked on drugs, and then pimp them out to cover the cost of staying high. These women are hostages that walk the streets. The sad thing is that the pimps aren't the only ones the prostitutes have to worry about. The Pickton trial is evidence of that. Not only could legalization eliminate these pimps, but it could also provide saftey standards and medical care for the women aswell as bring in extra tax dollars.

Kind of like Dean Koontz' "Watchers"? Good book. I think this is a hoax along the lines of the "Kitten in a bottle" that was going around a couple of years ago.

Again with "the left" comments. "The Left" are the ones that sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. Do you not think there is support among people who vote "left", and people who are "left" MP's, to remain and finish the job? Yes I do but I also happen to know mass opposition to the war comes from the left and not from the right. That being said, I acknowledge that there are intelligent people on the opposite side of the spectrum too that recognize we need to stay there. And there are also "right wing" supporters who do not support the war. So don't you think you are doing your own arguments a dis-service by making blanket statements about "the left" being the only detractors of the war in Afghanistan?

Again with "the left" comments. "The Left" are the ones that sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. Do you not think there is support among people who vote "left", and people who are "left" MP's, to remain and finish the job?

...