bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Anyone who says the dumb shit stuff that he had said in the past ..aint very smart. You mean "dumb shit" like...."A proof is a proof....."? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 You mean "dumb shit" like...."A proof is a proof....."? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU Sorry, I couldn't resist. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Sorry, I couldn't resist. Thanks....classic comedy is timeless! This nugget is used in Euclidean geometry classes around the world. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 \ The essence is he never said he wanted to send Canadians to Iraq. Even in a pre deployment. To quote another, End of Story Of course he did. If you honestly believe that Harper was against sending troops to Iraq... carry on soldier. "I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter. Failure to do so (ie. topple Saddam) is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation. -- Harper House of Commons - January 2003 "Nay." -- Harper voting against a motion urging the Canadian government not to participate in the US military intervention in Iraq, March 20, 2003. Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Dats hokay...hits water under de fridge... Edited February 1, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 You mean "dumb shit" like...."A proof is a proof....."? I guess we both had dumb shits as leaders.... except for the fact that ours had a better bullshit detector than yours did. Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Just in case anyone hadn't noticed.... this thread was intended to be about the military conducting an internal inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees transferred to the custody of the Afghan security forces.... and by extension to broader Afghan detainee controversy.... but it's turned into a one-liner exchange about WMDs in Iraq? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Just in case anyone hadn't noticed.... this thread was intended to be about the military conducting an internal inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees transferred to the custody of the Afghan security forces.... and by extension to broader Afghan detainee controversy.... but it's turned into a one-liner exchange about WMDs in Iraq? It always does....next up...Hitler! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 I guess we both had dumb shits as leaders.... except for the fact that ours had a better bullshit detector than yours did. Maybe...and the fact that nobody outside of Canada gave a crap about what yours did. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) It always does....next up...Hitler! Seriously, this is a disaster. Might I advise exercising a bit of self-control on thread derailments? Although I'm guilty of contributing to the derailment process with what I'm about to say, it's painfully dishonest and incorrect to suggest that the assertions of Iraq maintaining and procuring WMDs were "bullshit". I don't want to get into why, but any honest examination of matters will reveal that Iraq obviously possessed WMDs and being obstructionist with respect to inspections and continual pressure from the Western World (even the UN) to come clean. Edited February 1, 2010 by Gabriel Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Seriously, this is a disaster. Might I advise exercising a bit of self-control on thread derailments? Good luck....these things always trace back to BUSH and Iraq, like the film Groundhog Day. If not for Bush...then Canada would have never made "bad" choices...anywhere! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Colvin's character was never attacked by the government. Of course it was. I didnt make that stuff up. Defence Minister Peter MacKay has described Colvin as a "suspect source" who has been duped by Taliban-planted stories in Afghanistan. CTV Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Just in case anyone hadn't noticed.... this thread was intended to be about the military conducting an internal inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees transferred to the custody of the Afghan security forces.... and by extension to broader Afghan detainee controversy.... but it's turned into a one-liner exchange about WMDs in Iraq? I agree. Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Of course it was. I didnt make that stuff up. Defence Minister Peter MacKay has described Colvin as a "suspect source" who has been duped by Taliban-planted stories in Afghanistan. CTV That's not character assassination, though. MacKay is suggesting that Colvin was too quick to believe what he had been told by former detainees (whom MacKay is alleging are Taliban) who are aware of our system and concern for fair treatment and intend to exploit these characteristics of ours. Again, that isn't character assassination, it's speculation which I believe is accurate. My impression is that Colvin is a bleeding heart leftie who isn't concerned with obtaining the truth, and is ideologically predisposed to think that we're the erring party in this conflict. Or at the very least, he's anti-military and thinks of considers military servicepersons to be brutes incapable to ascertaining the nuances of detainee legalties... or maybe he's just a partisan Liberal. Either way, I didn't hesitate to do character assassination on Colvin in the original threads when this story began, but the government never did. Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 That's not character assassination, though. MacKay is suggesting that Colvin was too quick to believe what he had been told by former detainees (whom MacKay is alleging are Taliban) who are aware of our system and concern for fair treatment and intend to exploit these characteristics of ours. No. Mackay is calling him a "suspect source" and a "dupe"...thats definitely character assasination. Had he simply said that Colvin was too quick to believe what he had been told ... different story. Ergo Mackay is a thug in shining armour who is simply trying to emulate Harpers style.. Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) No. Mackay is calling him a "suspect source" and a "dupe"...thats definitely character assasination. Had he simply said that Colvin was too quick to believe what he had been told ... different story. Ergo Mackay is a thug in shining armour who is simply trying to emulate Harpers style.. You're playing the CTV semantics game. I remember watching that EXACT clip immediately after the question period and being so frustrated how ALL the correspondents/reporter at CTV were micharacterizing MacKay's and the government's treatment of Colvin. Saying that Colvin has been duped isn't the same as calling him a dupe. That Graeme Smith guy is very biased, as well. On that segment he led the charge that the government was attacking Colvin personally, which is absolutely untrue. I'm not going to repeat myself, neither MacKay nor the government engaged in character assassination of Colvin, no matter how much the opposition or left-wing media can suggest so. There's a huge difference between attacking someone's assertions and attacking their character, but you're unable or unwilling to see that difference. Here's a challenge you will be unable to fulfill. Find REAL quotes that disparage Colvin and are akin to character assassination made by MacKay or other members of the government. This last line of yours, "Ergo Mackay is a thug in shining armour who is simply trying to emulate Harpers style.." really tells us all we need to know about your ideological leanings, for those of us who couldn't already decipher it. Edited February 1, 2010 by Gabriel Quote
capricorn Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 The Liberals did a good job of positioning Colvin's character at the very centre of an issue that should have been discussed intelligently and factually. What is it they say about useful idiots? It was also useful for the Liberals to divert any talk about this being a case of a detainee being hit with a shoe. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 You're playing the CTV semantics game. There are no semantics about it. If you are absolutely denying that the term "dupe" and "suspect source" were not used on Colvin... that is another matter. I contend that MacKay is a thug as only a thug would stoop to that kind of discourse. I recall the indicent with his nasty canine comment about Belinda Stronach...oh no...he's a thug alright... Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) The Liberals did a good job of positioning Colvin's character at the very centre of an issue that should have been discussed intelligently and factually. What is it they say about useful idiots? It was also useful for the Liberals to divert any talk about this being a case of a detainee being hit with a shoe. I agree, and the media was largely complicit in detracting from an analysis of the credibility of Colvin's assertions towards false allegations of character assassination from the government. It drove me nuts to watch that CTV segment with the talking heads all expressing outrage at how mean the government was being to Colvin, when in reality the government was walking on eggshells and biting their tongues with respect to what they really wanted to say about Colvin (that he's obviously a Liberal hack opportunist trying to build some name for himself as a courageous whistleblower championing human rights by disparaging our military, government, and country). Edited February 1, 2010 by Gabriel Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) There are no semantics about it. If you are absolutely denying that the term "dupe" and "suspect source" were not used on Colvin... that is another matter. I contend that MacKay is a thug as only a thug would stoop to that kind of discourse. I recall the indicent with his nasty canine comment about Belinda Stronach...oh no...he's a thug alright... Why are you artfully dodging the point? Colvin wasn't called a dupe. MacKay said Colvin had been duped by Taliban prisoners who sought to exploit Canada's concern for abiding by international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners. Saying someone has been duped is not the same as calling someone a dupe. You're either intentionally being disingenuous or you have some serious comprehension issues with the English language. I'm going to assume it's the former. Edited February 1, 2010 by Gabriel Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Why are you artfully dodging the point? He wasn't called a dupe. MacKay said he had been duped by Taliban prisoners who sought to exploit Canada's concern for abiding by international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners. Saying someone has been duped is not the same as calling someone a dupe. You're either intentionally being disingenuous or you have some serious comprehension issues with the English language. I'm going to assume it's the former. I'm not dodging anything. Even the mere suggestion that a man in his position was "duped" by the enemy and that he was a "suspect source" is typical of their thugery. You have conveniently forgotton how Harper and the boys accused Paul Martin of being soft on child porn. More thuggery. Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 Why are you artfully dodging the point? He wasn't called a dupe. MacKay said he had been duped by Taliban prisoners who sought to exploit Canada's concern for abiding by international standards with respect to the treatment of prisoners. Saying someone has been duped is not the same as calling someone a dupe. You're either intentionally being disingenuous or you have some serious comprehension issues with the English language. I'm going to assume it's the former. I'm not dodging anything. Even the mere suggestion that a man in his position was "duped" by the enemy and that he was a "suspect source" is typical of their thugery. You have conveniently forgotton how Harper and the boys accused Paul Martin of being soft on child porn. More thuggery. Quote
Gabriel Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 I'm not dodging anything. Even the mere suggestion that a man in his position was "duped" by the enemy and that he was a "suspect source" is typical of their thugery. You have conveniently forgotton how Harper and the boys accused Paul Martin of being soft on child porn. More thuggery. Did you seriously just bring up some Paul Martin accusation in a thread about the military inquiring into allegations of abuse towards Afghan detainees? You can't honestly expect me to reply to that. Talk about pointless and off-topic. Look, don't try to convince me that MacKay is a thug. Start small - show me evidence that the government engaged in character assassination to discredit Colvin instead of simply attacking his testimony. Then we can grudate together and talk more broadly of the alleged "thuggery" of the Harper government. It doesn't matter how many times you try to spin it, saying that Colvin is a suspect source because he has been duped by Taliban prisoner is NOT character assassination, no matter how many times you try to twist MacKay's words. Prove me wrong and take me up on my challenge - show me real evidence of the government's engagement in character assassination and personal attacks against Colvin. Colvin wasn't called a liar or dishonest or a terrorist sympathizer, rather it was suggested that he was naive in believing allegations from TWO interviews he had taken part in with Taliban prisoners who claimed they were abused. Colvin then extrapolated that to suggest that ALL detainees transferred from Canadian forces to the Afghan security forces were "likely tortured". Quote
Born Free Posted February 1, 2010 Report Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Did you seriously just bring up some Paul Martin accusation in a thread about the military inquiring into allegations of abuse towards Afghan detainees? What I'm doing is that I'm supporting my argument that Harper and the boys are thugs. Giving examples of their past behaviour is a rather good way to demonstrate that fact. Calling one of their diplomats names or applying lables to him is simply a more current example of their thuggery. I'm sorry that you arent able to see it for what it is...unless of course you honestly believe that the words were never said by Mackay .....or Harper for that matter. Well do you? I characterize it as a collective body of work that they share and it isnt pretty. Edited February 1, 2010 by Born Free Quote
Gabriel Posted February 2, 2010 Report Posted February 2, 2010 What I'm doing is that I'm supporting my argument that Harper and the boys are thugs. Giving examples of their past behaviour is a rather good way to demonstrate that fact. Calling one of their diplomats names or applying lables to him is simply a more current example of their thuggery. I'm sorry that you arent able to see it for what it is...unless of course you honestly believe that the words were never said by Mackay .....or Harper for that matter. Well do you? I characterize it as a collective body of work that they share and it isnt pretty. Before trying to broadly characterize the Harper government as thugs, why not try to prove a simple assertion you've made first? Prove that the government engaged in character assassination with respect to Colvin. I've already addressed how you're intentionally bending the words of MacKay with respect to him suggesting that Colvin was duped by Taliban prisoners. You restated is as MacKay calling Colvin a dupe, which he didn't do. Again and again, I'm having to correct your mischarcterizations of the statement. Why don't you just admit that the government didn't engage in personal attacks against Colvin? Or, at the very least, show some evidence and find some quotes where they did indeed denigrate Colvin's character. If you can simply show us where Colvin was denigrated, I'll concede that the government did indeed get personal with respect to Colvin. I watched the exchanges, though, I watched the full testimony, I watched the question periods (like I do now, I had a lot of free time during that week), and I never saw anything that crossed the line towards insulting Colvin. Just prove me wrong, that's all I'm asking. Otherwise, stop parroting the nonsense we saw on CTV claiming otherwise. 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.