The CPC has no need to dirty their hands..

[shoop]

The title of the thread clearly implies that the CPC agrees with the contents of the pamphlet IMT quoted in his original post. He is trying to link the CPC to that sicko crap. That is utterly indefensible. Trudeau should be banned for such grossly ignorant tactics.

Shoop, Argus, et al. are just trying to make a "straw man" of Trudeau here, putting false words into Trudeau's mouth.......  Is that a standard CPC supporter's tactic ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Argus]

IMT, you've made an obvious error which others have already pointed out.  You have offered no support at all for the suggestion that this guy is acting as a proxy for the Conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Had you, or anyone else, bothered to read the title of the thread, you'd have noticed that I in no way claimed that the Conservatives were involved in this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true... Trudeau never once linked the pamphlet to the CPC party,

You have as little intellectual honesty as IMT. Both of you are too full of hate for your political opponents to write a post without spittle hitting your monitor.

[err]

IMT, you've made an obvious error which others have already pointed out.  You have offered no support at all for the suggestion that this guy is acting as a proxy for the Conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Had you, or anyone else, bothered to read the title of the thread, you'd have noticed that I in no way claimed that the Conservatives were involved in this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true... Trudeau never once linked the pamphlet to the CPC party,

You have as little intellectual honesty as IMT. Both of you are too full of hate for your political opponents to write a post without spittle hitting your monitor.

Ah, right... I hadn't noticed the second line in the title prior to now. I guess Trudeau was stating that Steve Harper's CPC party don't need to make the false accusations that the Liberals "promote child porn", this time. I clearly remember the previous election campaigns, when Steve Harper and his CPC party kept harping (not pun intended) on that Paul Martin and his Liberals promoted child porn and other forms of perversion....

So actually, the second line of the title does seem to be quite fitting, wouldn't you think.... Steven Harper doesn't have to sling these false accusations at Paul Martin this time because there's another right wing nutbar doing it in Harper's stead this time. Harper doesn't have to be seen as he was in previous campaigns (with dirt on his hands).

If Trudeau had accused the CPC of encouraging the nutbar to imitate what Steve Harper did in previous election campaigns, then maybe you'd have a point.... But that not being the case, you don't have a valid argument.

PS. What kind of tissue do you use to clean the spittle from your monitor?

[politika]

If you guys think Trudeau's an obvious troll maybe you should all stop "feeding the troll" All you guys are doing is going to get your selves banned form this forum as well. Leave Trudeau to be banned and stop replying to this off topic, in appropriate and ridiculus thread that for some reason troll trudeau posted.

Hey I am just looking out for the rest of you guys, thats all.

[shoop]

The thing to do, given that IMT is an obvious troll, is to PM Greg and complain.

I know Greg will probably ban him when he reads this crap, but the more of us that complain the more likely that is to happen.

If you guys think Trudeau's an obvious troll maybe you should all stop "feeding the troll" All you guys are doing is going to get your selves banned form this forum as well.  Leave Trudeau to be banned and stop replying to this off topic, in appropriate and ridiculus thread that for some reason troll trudeau posted.

Hey I am just looking out for the rest of you guys, thats all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[crazymf]

I'm not going to complain to Greg. I occasionally pipe up from a little too deep down myself, so the ignore button works for me. Let Greg do his job as he sees fit.

[shoop]

To each their own. I recognize my reaction to IMT's original post was a little strong, but what can you do? The fact that IMT and err tried to defend it was that much more outrageous.

I'm not going to complain to Greg. I occasionally pipe up from a little too deep down myself, so the ignore button works for me. Let Greg do his job as he sees fit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Riverwind]

To each their own. I recognize my reaction to IMT's original post was a little strong, but what can you do? The fact that IMT and err tried to defend it was that much more outrageous.

I will try to cut a middle ground here: it is clear this wacko has absolutely nothing to do with the CPC and trying to associate him with the CPC is extremely unfair. However, many people in the country are appalled that Harper claimed that Martin supported child pornography during the last election campaign. Harper (as far as I remember) has never apologized for this attack and still insists today that it was 'fair comment'.

Anyone who a) thinks Harper was out of line and reads that pamphlet would see a superficial similarity between the wacko's logic and Harper's logic. However, that similarity goes away quite quickly after more careful analysis.

What I think IMT and err are saying is Harper was wrong to make that comment about pornography (even though it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread).

[shoop]

Harper was referring to Martin, and other Liberals, voting record's in the house of commons. The incredible leap between that, and the filth in this pamphlet, is sad. IMT was trolling plain and simple. (Not to defend the release, it was a mistake and in very bad taste.)

Anybody who actually saw the CPC press release that caused the original furor would not see any similarity between the wacko and Harper.

Alas, postings like IMT's help make that connection a little clearer for people who don't take the time to read things themselves.

I will try to cut a middle ground here: it is clear this wacko has absolutely nothing to do with the CPC and trying to associate him with the CPC is extremely unfair. However, many people in the country are appalled that Harper claimed that Martin supported child pornography during the last election campaign. Harper (as far as I remember) has never apologized for this attack and still insists today that it was 'fair comment'.

Anyone who a) thinks Harper was out of line and reads that pamphlet would see a superficial similarity between the wacko's logic and Harper's logic. However, that similarity goes away quite quickly after more careful analysis.

What I think IMT and err are saying is Harper was wrong to make that comment about pornography (even though it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Shakeyhands]

I'd add that IMT, as he is attacked by some here, adds a hell of a lot more to this forumn than some of those calling for his ouster . Pretty funny actually.

[Greg]

This thread is way way out of line and I Miss Trudeau will be taking a one month suspension to consider the alternatives.

This is indefensible crap and everybody here knows it.

[PocketRocket]

I'm still a bit curious about this line from the thread's title......

...they have cooks to do it for them

.....?????

[Leader Circle]

Good job Greg!

Thanks!

[shoop]

Thanks Greg! Good work with that!

----------------------------------------------------------------

PocketRocket

I was puzzled by that one too. I think he was trying to refer to the 'plumbers' who were Nixon's henchmen during Watergate. Alas, IMT couldn't even get that right.

I'm still a bit curious about this line from the thread's title......

...they have cooks to do it for them

.....?????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PocketRocket]

SHOOP: What has me wondering is the word "cooks".

It just kinda makes me go ???!!!???

[kimmy]

SHOOP: What has me wondering is the word "cooks".

It just kinda makes me go ???!!!??? 

He meant "crooks."

-kimmy

{with fond memories of rostrums/nostrums}

[shoop]

I kinda thought that, but it doesn't make much sense in context...

He meant "crooks."

-kimmy

{with fond memories of rostrums/nostrums}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

I kinda thought that, but it doesn't make much sense in context...

He meant "crooks."

-kimmy

{with fond memories of rostrums/nostrums}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah I am pretty sure he meant crooks.

[kimmy]

I will try to cut a middle ground here: it is clear this wacko has absolutely nothing to do with the CPC and trying to associate him with the CPC is extremely unfair.

Indeed. And despite his protestations of innocence, IMT is too intelligent to not have known what he was doing.

However, many people in the country are appalled that Harper claimed that Martin supported child pornography during the last election campaign. Harper (as far as I remember) has never apologized for this attack and still insists today that it was 'fair comment'.

Anyone who a) thinks Harper was out of line and reads that pamphlet would see a superficial similarity between the wacko's logic and Harper's logic. However, that similarity goes away quite quickly after more careful analysis.

The source of the controversy was the title of the original press release, which I believe was "Paul Martin supports child porn?" and that remained the source of the countroversy even though the press release was quickly retitled "How Touch Is Paul Martin On Child Pornography?"

It was a fair question, given the timing. Keep in mind that the same week, the killer of 10-year old Holly Jones had confessed and claimed that Internet Child Porn had caused him to do it. In response to the media furor and questions of what he's doing about child porn, Paul Martin had claimed he was tough on child porn. Raising his voting record on related bills in parliament was absolutely fair game. If somebody makes a claim like that, impeaching them using facts is fair game.

And obviously the original title of the press release was way out of line. It was a miserable failure of somebody in the party's PR group. It's the kind of shrillness that one expects from extremists, not major political parties. In media scrums, Harper tried to focus the message on the body of the press release rather than the original title, which was what the press wanted to talk about. Should he have apologized? From a manners standpoint, probably it would have been the right thing to do. From a campaign standpoint, I'm not sure. Harper was trying to bring the discussion back to Martin's voting record on the issue, which was fair game, but the media wanted to focus on the headline misstep. Would apologizing have let Harper get the discussion back to his message? It's difficult to say.

What I think IMT and err are saying is Harper was wrong to make that comment about pornography (even though it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread).

This is the heart of it. There's no reason to believe the CPC has anything to do with this, but the thread seeks to imply a connection.

-k

[kimmy]

He meant "crooks."

I kinda thought that, but it doesn't make much sense in context...

Bill Whatcott could be considered a crook; his pamphlets have gotten him sued in the past, and deemed to "incite hatred". "Crook" usually implies theft; "criminal" might be a more accurate description of Mr Whatcott.

-k