Ricki Bobbi

Said it once, but I'll repeat it for you.

It would be criticism if you were open to any debate on the issue. You aren't. You hate Harper. Nothing he does is good enough for you. Nothing he could ever do is good enough for you. Is there some reason why you would expect me to do what you order? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black on the maturity front...

You said That wasn't the case and isn't the truth. I bother because you bother...

What is the significance of the difference gerry? Seems like you are just picking a fight for the sake of it instead of admitting when you are in error. any other orders on how I should behave on the board? Maybe you should ask the moderators to change the rules of the forum.

Where did you stumble upon this bit of news? I don't think you got it quite right. Glad to see some people stay mute after asking for support then realizing they were totally in the wrong. If obstinance ane obfuscation were postive character traits...

We'll have to see what Harper says when he addresses the nation. Afghanistan is a difficult nation to fight in. A commitment to combatting terrorists is needed. Stability in the region will help reduce the potential for breeding future terrorists.

Tell the truth, you work for Steve, right? There's no other explanation for your rabid anger over my critisism of him. BAH! No I don't work for the man. Big bidness is my boss at the moment. Making a joke about pretty childish behaviour isn't a sign of anger. But at least it got you off your attack track for a bit....

And it would have remained a minor story hidden in the back pages if Fraser hadn't launched a full investigation. Yet again the *proof* provided is misleading and irrelevant....

It's obvious more debate is needed on the mission in Afghanistan because a speaker at an NDP convention said so. *wow* there is proof right there if I have ever seen it.

The two separate posts seem awfully similar to me as well. This would be the rule that *doesn't* apply in this case.

Gotta love the double standard hey. Emotionally high-maintenance on the one hand while rude and condescending when talking about other people. Maybe somebody who looks like Stephen Harper stole candy from him as a child...

Brilliant! Makes me wonder how somebody can devote time and effort to attack another person and trying to make them look bad. I wonder if their is any personal bad blood?

Darn that Stephen Harper going to the people on a nationally televised address to explain the commitments the government has made in response to 9/11 sand why the are going to honour their commitments. It's a shrewd attempt at defining Afghanistan. Explain why we are participating in the mission and let the people decide. He's taking a risk When was the last time a Prime Minister addressed the nation? Hmmm, that would be April 21st, 2005 when Paul Martin begged for more time as PM. Hmm, that worked pretty well for him, didn't it? Truthfully though Martin's address was born out of such desperation that it did the best he could hope for. Bought him time before the inevitable defeat of his party in the House of Commons. Harper's upside with this address is a majority government. He's never gonna get the Harper haters, but hey give the Conservatives another 4 or 5 points of popular suppport and they are in majority government teritory.

Some people are hear just to attack Harper and the Conservatives. Perhaps there could be a new forum started here just for people with that interest.

I appreciate that JBG. A case can be made for legitimizing the poll the government did run. But I'm here to debate and those who are here just to attack Harper and/or the Conservatives aren't worth the time or effort....

Great points W&W. Don't get too worked up about it though. The rules of the forum don't really apply to everybody. When you see behaviour like that just use the ignore function!

I'll make it simple for you jdobbin. MSH wasn't referring to the legislation when he mentioned Mulroney making the Liberals look bad. He was talking about Mulroney's attempts to address the democratice deficit (not a term in common use in Mulroney's day) by attempting to change the constitution. The Liberals never had the political courage to attempt to change the consitution despite 12+ years of majority governments. *AND* Martin never tried to address the democratic deficit in any meaningful way despite repeated pledges to do so. I guess you could say he dithered on that promise.

Because you keep pushing it as a part of your relentless campaign to belittle Steven Harper and/or the Conservatives at any chance no matter how obscure the reference.

Great.

Don't attack my posts and I won't attack yours. If you are going to start posts with you are picking a fight.

So you ask a question why you have to do anything I ask then follow it with an order on how I should behave. Hmmm, don't really see why I should be held to a higher standard than you are.

You tell me how to behave in one post, then lecture me about the proper way to treat posters in another? And I'm the one picking fights? Hmmmm.....

If you want to play this little pedantic game of ignoring every point I make and demanding I don't personally attack you, when it isn't objectively clear it was a personal attack have fun. Your continually avoiding answering questions and focusing on minutiae that are open to debate says a few things. You are holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself *and* you demand a level of respect that you don't accord to others. Follow the Golden Rule or don't wonder why people ignore your *orders* on a lightly-moderated message board.

Oops, double post.

Great. I'd ask for support of your statement, but you might take that as a personal attack... So the legislation on term limits could be open to a court challenge.