jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 BTW, has Ignatieff commented on this report? I'm sure Kinsella is getting read to sue and win. Like he always does. Quote
lily Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Why is that Lily? Should Harper have been able to foresee that someone would write a fictitious article? Catholics believe that the wafer IS the host, not just symbolic. In the churches I've been in, the wafer is placed directly on the tongue, and it's imperative that no crumbs fall on the floor. He should have done what everyone else did, and take it right away. I have no idea why he'd hang onto it. Quote I'll rise, but I won't shine.
Visionseeker Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 LinkBTW, has Ignatieff commented on this report? Lets see what gets redacted It ain't going away because Harper flubbed. And instead of apologizing, he lied. Monty Python's a fitting metaphor for our PM: "It's just a wafer" [subject explodes] Quote
Molly Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Oogabooga! Now the Liberals (with their horns and those teeth) are responsible for sloppy, tasteless journalism? Get real, people! Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
capricorn Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I'm sure Kinsella is getting read to sue and win. Like he always does. Well he sure gets enough practice. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Well he sure gets enough practice. At winning lawsuits. He certainly does. I can't think of one that he has lost. So let's see someone continue this line of attacks because this is Kinsella's reaction this morning: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/ Is it libel to falsely accuse someone of a cover-up - of a conspiracy, in effect - without contacting them for their side of the story, without making the slightest effort to ascertain the true facts?In the Commonwealth, yes it is. Sweet Lord, but am I going to be suing someone today. Kinsella's lawyers have contacted those that are making accusations this morning. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/30/waferga...cts/#more-73514 My lawyers have sent a letter to Lifesite News this morning demanding that they correct the record (as you have sought to do), and apologize. If they do not, they will profoundly regret it. And that, too, is the truth. Let's see if that puts a damper on things in this forum since it is very likely that he will continue to have his lawyers contact websites about libel. Edited July 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Topaz Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Perhaps both, Harper and Iggy lose on this one. Harper loses the Catholic votes, meaning most of Quebec, because we don't SEE Harper putting into his mouth as he says he did and we know we can't TRUST what he says most of the time and for Iggy, how he handles this and is honest enough IF it's true, to say so. A lesson for Iggy, always to honest and true or people won't TRUST you either. Quote
capricorn Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Let's see if that puts a damper on things in this forum since it is very likely that he will continue to have his lawyers contact websites about libel. This is very interesting. What was your intent in pressing posters to divulge a name? Were you hoping that someone would rise to the bait and finger Warren Kinsella? Well it didn't happen so no one here need fear Kinsella's lawyers. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
noahbody Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 This is very interesting. What was your intent in pressing posters to divulge a name? Were you hoping that someone would rise to the bait and finger Warren Kinsella? Well it didn't happen so no one here need fear Kinsella's lawyers. Kinsella is one of Dobbin's facebook friends. Quote
Malaclypse the Younger Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 I blame Flying Spaghetti Monster. Let's get'im! Quote "You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. " -Abbie Hoffman
waldo Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 This is very interesting. What was your intent in pressing posters to divulge a name? Were you hoping that someone would rise to the bait and finger Warren Kinsella? Well it didn't happen so no one here need fear Kinsella's lawyers. This is very interesting. It explains your reluctance in naming names... it explains your penchant for casting unfounded aspersions toward Liberals - it explains it all. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 This is very interesting. It explains your reluctance in naming names... it explains your penchant for casting unfounded aspersions toward Liberals - it explains it all. The crucial fact lacking in naming names is the absebce of kbowledge of whom to name. The name of course exists. It is certainly known by the Editor and perhaps by the publisher. Someone obviously fed the item to them. I think it would be best if the Liberals outted whom ever it was rather than wait for the mud to be racked and discovered when they are no longer able to manage the discovery. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shakeyhands Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Perhaps both, Harper and Iggy lose on this one. Harper loses the Catholic votes, meaning most of Quebec, because we don't SEE Harper putting into his mouth as he says he did and we know we can't TRUST what he says most of the time and for Iggy, how he handles this and is honest enough IF it's true, to say so. A lesson for Iggy, always to honest and true or people won't TRUST you either. The big deal in all this is Harpers assertion that he consumed the host. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, though if he didn't, it wouldnt be the first time he lied. It's amazing how many that man gets caught in. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
August1991 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Catholics believe that the wafer IS the host, not just symbolic. In the churches I've been in, the wafer is placed directly on the tongue, and it's imperative that no crumbs fall on the floor. He should have done what everyone else did, and take it right away. I have no idea why he'd hang onto it. Lily, how could Harper put the host/wafer in his pocket if the priest first put the wafer/host on Harper's lips?IOW, drop it, Lily. The news report was false. Harper never put the host/wafer in his pocket. The videowas one of those "UFO lights in the sky video". Perhaps both, Harper and Iggy lose on this one. Harper loses the Catholic votes, meaning most of Quebec, because we don't SEE Harper putting into his mouth as he says he did and we know we can't TRUST what he says most of the time and for Iggy, how he handles this and is honest enough IF it's true, to say so. A lesson for Iggy, always to honest and true or people won't TRUST you either.The Catholic vote in Quebec? (Giggle.)I agree however that Ignatieff has been silent. (At least Obama has the decency to offer a beer when he realizes that he made a mistake.) The real purpose of this slander was to try to show that Harper is a narrow-minded backward WASP rube. The big deal in all this is Harpers assertion that he consumed the host. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, though if he didn't, it wouldnt be the first time he lied. It's amazing how many that man gets caught in.From what I understand, in Harper's Protestant denomination, communion with a host is common. He is perfectly familiar with the ritual. I'm also sure that this is not the first time that Harper has assisted a Catholic mass. When he came forward to receive the host, Harper knew what he was doing.The saddest thing in this whole story is how many (English) Canadians have so little confidence in the basic intelligence of their Prime Minister. Edited July 30, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Shakeyhands Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Lily, how could Harper put the host/wafer in his pocket if the priest first put the wafer/host on Harper's lips?IOW, drop it, Lily. The news report was false. Harper never put the host/wafer in his pocket. The videowas one of those "UFO lights in the sky video". The Catholic vote in Quebec? (Giggle.) I agree however that Ignatieff has been silent. (At least Obama has the decency to offer a beer when he realizes that he made a mistake.) The real purpose of this slander was to try to show that Harper is a narrow-minded backward WASP rube. In what video do you see the Priest going anywhere near Harpers mouth? The video clearly shows Harper taking it with his hand, and his hand going nowhere near his yap as he walks away. Is there another angle? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
August1991 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) In what video do you see the Priest going anywhere near Harpers mouth? The video clearly shows Harper taking it with his hand, and his hand going nowhere near his yap as he walks away. Is there another angle?Gawd.... This will never end.Shakey, I was responding to Lily's comment that usually in Catholic communion, the priest lays the host directyly on the person's lips. I don't know what happened in New Brunswick. As to the Youtube video, as I said, we have all seen UFO videos with lights in the sky. Unintended optical illusions occur. ----- But look. Do you really think that Stephen Harper is so stupid as to do what it is claimed that he did? For example, would the American MSM make such a big deal of a similar video of Barack Obama in a similar situation? Or would everyone say that Obama is a smart, sensitive, open-minded guy? It is sad that so many people in (English) Canada were so quick to jump on this idea that Harper is an ignorant hick. (Those backward Albertans!) Anyway, the sole original published source - the Saint John Telegraph-Journal - has retracted the story. The whole thing was a fabrication. And according to Fife, a (no-name) Liberal fabrication. Edited July 30, 2009 by August1991 Quote
jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Kinsella is one of Dobbin's facebook friends. What better way to find out who he is going to sue next? As I've said before, I'm not anonymous here. Maybe others would like to be more open and transparent. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 This is very interesting. What was your intent in pressing posters to divulge a name? Were you hoping that someone would rise to the bait and finger Warren Kinsella? Well it didn't happen so no one here need fear Kinsella's lawyers. Uh, c'mon, don't be shy. You know you wanna say it. If you truly, really, honestly believe and know it then say it loud and proud. Quote
jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Anyway, the sole original published source - the Saint John Telegraph-Journal - has retracted the story. The whole thing was a fabrication. And according to Fife, a (no-name) Liberal fabrication. And Fife is likely getting a letter from lawyers. Let's see the fur fly! Edited July 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
August1991 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) And Fife is likely getting a letter from lawyers. Let's see the fur fly! What does Ignatieff have to say? Has Ignatieff even responded? Heck, where is the Liberal leader - in Canada? ----- Fur fly? Somebody started this false story and many fingers point to either the Liberal Party or the Irving family or both. I would expect both the Liberals and the Irvings to deny vehemently that they had anything to do with this story. Nevertheless, both would benefit from hurting Stephen Harper. (The story is seductive among some English Canadians: Harper, a redneck from Calgary, understands nothing about Catholic catechism.) I doubt the Irvings will waste any of their money sueing anyone. Some Liberals might sue for PR reasons, to advertise that they play tough. Edited July 30, 2009 by August1991 Quote
jdobbin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) What does Ignatieff have to say? Has Ignatieff even responded? Heck, where is the Liberal leader - in Canada? Just made an announcement that it is looking more like an election in the fall. Or did you not see him on TV or the Internet? ----- Fur fly?Somebody started this false story and many fingers point to either the Liberal Party or the Irving family or both. I would expect both the Liberals and the Irvings to deny vehemently that they had anything to do with this story. Nevertheless, both would benefit from hurting Stephen Harper. (The story is seductive among some English Canadians: Harper, a redneck from Calgary, understands nothing about Catholic catechism.) I doubt the Irvings will waste any of their money sueing anyone. Some Liberals might sue for PR reasons, to advertise that they play tough. Name names. Let's see how how tough you are. Who in the Liberal party did it? I call you a coward if you can't name the person or persons you think are responsible. Edited July 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
waldo Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 The crucial fact lacking in naming names is the absence of knowledge of whom to name. The name of course exists. It is certainly known by the Editor and perhaps by the publisher.Someone obviously fed the item to them. I think it would be best if the Liberals outed whom ever it was rather than wait for the mud to be racked and discovered when they are no longer able to manage the discovery. well, of course! In the absence of knowledge of "whom to name", just cast a wide net... and make sure to emphasize it must be a Liberal conspiracy launched by wascally Liberals, intent on undermining Conservatives - intent on showcasing Harper as the bumbling redneck (he is). Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Name names. Let's see how how tough you are. Who in the Liberal party did it?I call you a coward if you can't name the person or persons you think are responsible. What a clown you are. I'm sure if anyone knew who it was there would be a naming. And the smart money would be on a liberal name. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
August1991 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Posted July 30, 2009 Just made an announcement that it is looking more like an election in the fall.How many times has Ignatieff (the Flake) threatened an election?I wondered whether Ignatieff has made any remark about Harper and Catholic communion. I'll bet that if or when Ignatieff deigns to refer to this scandal, he will take the high road, so-called statesman approach. Ignatieff will be the picture of open-minded reasonableness. This is the standard Liberal political method. Unnamed, underling Liberal activists launch the accusation and then top Liberals step in, are magnanimous, generous and understanding. I'm waiting for Ignatieff's pronouncement - we can call it papal bull. Name names. Let's see how how tough you are. Who in the Liberal party did it?I call you a coward if you can't name the person or persons you think are responsible. Let Ignatieff ask for the names. Quote
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.