Bob Macadoo

Are you going to start a thread about how grossed out you are about "fatties"? I'm guessing not, as its childish.....but you've proven me wrong before. I say gross yourself out....just don't throw your feces when people call you out for it.......quid pro quo.

You all dragged this discussion into the absurd. JT didn't ban internal debate, nor rip up any catholic's member card he is enforcing a party platform in the candidates he is to lead into parliament. I'm sure a general would love to have a pacifist charge over the hill with him. Apprently "open" nominations has been defined as any nutjob who shows up and says any wingbat thing no matter how it conflicts with the current party platform so long as some far off riding association likes him. Why have a party platform then? To me "open" means the rules of the game are clear not hidden in backroom power broking. If that is what is really going on here then I have an issue. However if the rule is clear "No anti-abortion candidates" then thats what it is. Get involved and change the rule.......don't piss and moan that the rule is too restrictive for your sensibilities.

The decision was already made.....enforcement was his initiative. If he needs to consult to enforce he wouldn't be much of a leader.

Facetiously e-lynch anyone? Or everything kosher with that I'm just talking 'bout a behaviour, nothing personal.

I don't understand why its so unacceptable to maintain a candidate roster (not members) that complies with the current party platform. That would be the democracy. The convention voted for it and therefore would want only those who represent their platform stand in front of it. Leadership would indicate one should direct your party's stated focus so you don't look like hypocrites. There is nothing to say on the next policy review convention to extract or reverse this particular policy, especially if they lose votes due to it. Just b/c this may be JT's personal view, doesn't make it his issue, its his party's issue. Would a social conservative in the CPC allowed to be a candidate if he was a communist? He'd be allowed a member card, but certainly NOT a party endorsement.

You repeatedly do the same in threads that thankfully no longer are created by your nemesis.

Just like his about face on Right to Work......mumble mumble.....scurry away.

.....each and every one. Time to draft Gazebo Tony.

What about when Tim Hardaway said he wouldn't be in the same lockerroom with gay players. After Jason Collins (playing for Brooklyn) came out I noticed they would put the camera on Hardaway when his son in NY was playing, but no one that I saw would go up and ask him anything.

It also influences others on this forum of the value of this conversation and whether that Justin Beiber forum is looking better and better everyday.

It's all a joke. You publish a topic wondering how to drum up business or at least keep the business you have, you're told what where and why and then begin to make it worse. I am new to this forum and have begun drifting out due to the trolling. Waldo may have an irritating manner but the discussion is appropos, as opposed to others that I have no history with but offer zero in the way of thread progression. Meh.

No....haven't you heard here......unions have outlived their usefulness.......government intervention is preferable to private market forces.

All it would take is for Hudak to go back to Walmart and hand the reins over to Elliott. It would be culling of all Liberal non strongholds.

Was I suppose to quote an obscure instance where a member gave a passive aggressive response, with no forum debating use, then give a backhanded insult to America on my way out the door?Reported and ignored.

No its how passive aggressive shutins get their kicks.

There's a point to this I just can't seem to grasp. This is a private forum, anyone banned for no reason, yet moderators make excuses why members are or are not allowed to remain. Should that even matter? If the issue to be solved is why membership has withdrawn over the years should not a member poll and or exit interview be the only useful data. Excuses can be made 'til the cows come home but if the only thing you care about is keeping members and there is an overriding reason why you're losing them......whatever justifications for your moderation you have be damned.

Is that really the narrative thats to be parroted after Poilievre's bill amendment release today......just making perfect, "more perfect"? Brilliant.

Exactly. Then it can be stated you insufficiently supported your opinion. Also you not only called it stupid you expressed a feeling to control her decision.....this is where it goes beyond simplicity.

You've already heard its not the established Norm, its been fast tracked. Not unlike closure on debates to bills and a multitude of other gov't shenanigans that have been for ulterior motives.

Got it shrug shoulders, rinse, repeat.I support economic activity that provides substantial benefit to Canada without irreparable damage to our longer term interests. I am very much NIMBY if you can't reduce my backyard risk to near zero while you sip mai thai(s) a thousand miles away with my royalty cheque.

Too late, thats the foundation you're proud to build your utopian society on. Yet parents and children organizing marriages prior to sex is against all that is good and holy.

.....say most armchair QBs until people are peeking into their backyards.

You just said 2 divergent statements. You can't have your superior cake and eat it too.Kinda like railing on about family values, and then letting underage alcohol poisoning in their home. Your pollyanic view of "normal society" is admirable as well as incorrect.

Yet is our "superior" societal norm you're standing behind. If you don't think so, you need to seriously look around.

You mean like my irish protestant parents who were forced into marriage by their parents over a pregnancy......you mean that culturally superior?