Michael Bluth Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Stand up, it went right over your head. Zing........... I have no desire to be part of Shakey's anti-semitism. Apologies if standing up for Israel is something you take offence to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Stand up, it went right over your head. Zing........... I hope the Harper's mother writes Olmert to say how upset she is that foreign leaders cannot show enough respect to call the Canadian prime minister by his actual given name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 I hope the Harper's mother writes Olmert to say how upset she is that foreign leaders cannot show enough respect to call the Canadian prime minister by his actual given name. And apparentley he's stated that he prefers Stephen.... or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 So is Shakeyhands on his disgusting charge that there is "no doubt" the Prime Minister will lie under oath.At least Doug Finley has the likelihood he could be involved in a court case to explain his behaviour. Shakey? No excuse. Just utter contempt, hyopcrisy and a lack of basic human decency. Where there is smoke there is fire. People can speculate on a public forum all they wish. That doesn't make it true. Finley should come clean. Otherwise, Shakey isn't going to be the only one speculating what the Prime Ministers says, and whether or not he will lie under oath. I myself, don't have that crystal ball, but should he ever consider lying under oath, the chances of being disgraced, increase. Remember Nixon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 And apparentley he's stated that he prefers Stephen.... or something like that. Is it the Hebrew origins of the name you take offence to Shakey? It's all falling together. And oh so disappointing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Is it the Hebrew origins of the name you take offence to Shakey? It's all falling together. Nothing like false piety about respect and raising the tone, intermingled with vicious, sneaky smears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Nothing like false piety about respect and raising the tone, intermingled with vicious, sneaky smears. It's eerie how dead-on you pointed out the flaws in this post of Shakey's six days after he posted it. Good memory! Can hardly believe this MB, I've only been nice to you, respectful, and this is how I am repayed? How do you know what I said to Fortunata or not? No one has been using Steve or Steph for a while now, or so I had thought. I suppose if one member does that excuses you then? If you think it makes the debate better to call Stephane Steph, well hell go ahead, it doesn't bother me in the least, where as Steve apparently sends you off your seat.Bottom line is we should all try being a little more mature. I've noticed the general tone on the board has gone down the last week or so. Can't imagine why. Smear, smear away, if it makes you feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 I have no desire to be part of Shakey's anti-semitism. Apologies if standing up for Israel is something you take offence to. No need to apologize for something that wasnt said, nor inferred. But let me offer my apologies for your lack of seeing the humour. Do you trade that for the handbook when you sign up? Zing goes another one. Maybe that other guy can explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchener Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 It's eerie how dead-on you pointed out the flaws in this post of Shakey's six days after he posted it. Good memory! And he slimed you by suggesting you're a Jew-hater where, exactly? But never mind. If "He dun it furst!" is your big response... well, frankly, nobody will be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 But never mind. If "He dun it furst!" is your big response... well, frankly, nobody will be surprised. Dont forget the "but the liberals line. Not to mention of course the only one who uses scary scary as if others have in recent memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) ...... Edited May 21, 2008 by Shakeyhands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) And he slimed you by suggesting you're a Jew-hater where, exactly? False piety about respect and raising the tone in Shakey's post. Check Intermingling of vicious sneaky smears in Shakey's post. Check Shakey never suggested I was a Jew-hater. Probably because I never said anything that could be remotely interpreted as such.... ...... Shakey, you're going to have to give a better defence of your actions than that! Edited May 21, 2008 by Michael Bluth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 No need to apologize for something that wasnt said, nor inferred. But let me offer my apologies for your lack of seeing the humour. Do you trade that for the handbook when you sign up? Zing goes another one. Maybe that other guy can explain? Not sure what this is all about but it seems par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Not sure what this is all about but it seems par for the course. Seems someone got sand in their mangina because someone used "Steve" . The horror.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Stand up, it went right over your head. Zing...........Maybe Ricki Bobbi can explain it to you. Ricki Bobbi frankly wasn't that bright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 As befitting the largest libel claim in Canadian history, it could be appealed either way. Expect a few more years before it is decided. That is, if the government decides to drop it at some point.Who is the Plaintiff, the Crown or Harper, or the CPC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Ricki Bobbi frankly wasn't that bright. Ok now that is funny. Not that it isnt true. Is ricki bobbi still around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Seems someone got sand in their mangina because someone used "Steve" . The horror.... Olmert? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 If you didn't mean it that way why would you say it that way? Or is it that whole thing of trying to paint the center right as scary?Nice Spin I wouldn't say Harper is centre-right. He's a true blue right winger. And even though I doubt very much he enjoys torturing kittens, my point was that people are put off by his cold stare, and that's probably what's holding the CPC back. I mean, really, would you be comfortable seeing this guy as the guard in your POW camp? http://www.lookupalliance.com/images-news/..._stephen-02.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 I wouldn't say Harper is centre-right. He's a true blue right winger. And even though I doubt very much he enjoys torturing kittens, my point was that people are put off by his cold stare, and that's probably what's holding the CPC back.I mean, really, would you be comfortable seeing this guy as the guard in your POW camp? http://www.lookupalliance.com/images-news/..._stephen-02.jpg I find your obvious glee in pointing out the physical characteristics of the Prime Minister that are not to your liking distasteful. I would be curious to know what your true motive is for using this tactic. I wouldn't be surprised if you're posting this nonsense just to annoy Conservative leaning forum members. But don't let this stop your juvenile comments. I have had lots of experience with teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 I find your obvious glee in pointing out the physical characteristics of the Prime Minister that are not to your liking distasteful. I would be curious to know what your true motive is for using this tactic. I wouldn't be surprised if you're posting this nonsense just to annoy Conservative leaning forum members.But don't let this stop your juvenile comments. I have had lots of experience with teenagers. I didn't find any "obvious glee" in that post. You have a point in that nobody can help how they look but Bubber has a point in that the eyes are cold. Eyes are supposedly the gateway to the soul. Chretien couldn't help his deformed mouth but I found it hard to watch. I absolutely can't watch (but do listen to) Mike Duffy. To me he looks like a skinned seal would look like - I just find it too painful to watch someone that unhealthy. So, do appearances count? Yes. Maybe they shouldn't but they do. But hey ... it's not all bad. Steve's stylist psychick did good today. He looked positively Conservative blue in that homey type sweater. That should appeal to food producers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) I didn't find any "obvious glee" in that post. You have a point in that nobody can help how they look but Bubber has a point in that the eyes are cold. Eyes are supposedly the gateway to the soul. Chretien couldn't help his deformed mouth but I found it hard to watch. But did you take offence to the PC ads about Chretien's face in 1993? I would hope you did. The ad was horrible and offensive. Harper was born with those eyes. To draw an analogy to Harper being a POW guard, as BubberMiley did is equally as horrible and offensive. Not sure what this is all about but it seems par for the course. Sadly your history of anti-semitism is par for the course. Why not try and defend it? Or apologize for your poor choice of an example? Edited May 22, 2008 by Michael Bluth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 No need to apologize for something that wasnt said, nor inferred. I must have missed something. What antisemitism is being referred to? That's a pretty serious charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Bluth Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) I must have missed something. What antisemitism is being referred to? That's a pretty serious charge. If you are still pretending that you can't read my posts, then of course you missed something. Shakey's offence was laughing at the statements of the leader of the Jewish state. I had to laugh at this today....http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/428111 I LOL'd!!! No explanation given or needed it appears. The Israeli PM speaking in his second language causes shakey to laugh and LOL. The condescension flows from his attitude to Stephen Harper and the CPC to the Jewish state. Utterly contemptuous of both. Edited May 22, 2008 by Michael Bluth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 There is no doubt the Prime Minister will lie under oath? Wow Shakey, for someone who whines about treating people with respect and the poor treatment you have received in return the hypocrisy is amazing. That is a disgusting, classless and juvenile comment without question. Your 'proof' is baseless and a joke. For someone who claims to be honourable your actions shame anyone who serves our country in a truly honourable manner. No doubt in my mind. I wouldn't think there would be any doubt in your mind either if it were Chretien or Martin on the stand. We all know politicians lie. We all know criminals lie. We all know that if lying on the witness stand is going to keep you/friend/family out of jail/trouble you/anybody are going to do it. It is only naive to think otherwise. The rest of your post with the shrouded insults towards shakeyhands can be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.