User's Guide to Assist in Finding Anti-Harper Commentary

[jbg]

A User's Guide to Assist in Finding Anti-Harper Posts

As a public service, I am consolidating references and links to anti-Harper threads, and on occasions posts, in one centralized location. This forum's "snapback" feature will greatly assist in moving to the actual thread, to post your anti- or pro-Harper sentiments. As an American, I barely know who Harper is. I can see, from my limited time here, that he excites almost total interest in some of his detractors, and inspires great admiration from others.

The Conservative party may have illegally accepted millions in unreported donations last year because it didn't understand political financing laws.

That's the startling conclusion drawn from testimony given to a Senate committee by the Harper administration's point man on cleaning up government.

*snip*

Are they really that stupid?

Link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...8/BNStory/Front

And another storage facility with another 20,000 tonnes of oil in it is on fire.

Why would Israel bomb oil storage facilities on the coast?

It's becoming more and more obvious that the goal of this campaign is to destroy Lebanon completely.

All part of Steve Harper's "measured response" I guess.

According to Angus Reid the people who say Harper made the wrong decision on Israel/Lebanon outnumber those who say he made the correct decision by a whopping 13%!!

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/12630

It's obvious that his "measured response" comment made on Friday the 13th was pre-mature.

Shortly after we discovered that eight Canadians were killed in this "measured response".

His comment also included the encouragement to Israel to defend itself, characterizing as all of it's actions as just that. Canadians are recognizing that this has gone a little beyond self-defense. One has to wonder if Israel could level Lebanon with nuclear weapons and have Harper call it self-defense.

Harper must have realized he'd dug himself a hole, because he didn't comment again on the crisis until returning from the G8. Then he dug the hole a little deeper:

"Obviously, there's been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins"

Obviously, frankly, things will escalate. Certainly, while there are world leaders roaming around cheering it on so much you'd expect to see pom-poms in their hands.

Harper has failed this test, and this poll is indicitive of that. And consider this poll was done last week, before the current scope of 500,000 displaced Lebanese came into focus.

There seems to be some confusion about the objections to Harpers handling of the Mid-East crisis.

The rightwing pundits are spreading the lie that those opposed to how Harper has handled things want to treat Hezbollah and Israel as moral equals.

*snip*

Starting to see it? THAT is being an honest broker. Being willing to critisize both sides harshly in a fair and open manner.

It DOESN'T mean that we give credance to Hezbollah or take their side. We're concerned with Lebanese civilians and Israeli civilians.

*snip*

That is a fair statement. An honest evaluation that could be made by an honest broker. Instead we have a man who simply repeats that Israel has a right to defend itself and Hezbollah has caused all of this. Not only is that uneccessary to repeat, but it's not fair and honest. Israel controls it's actions, they can not all be blamed on Hezbollah. They are not free from responsibility for what they choose to do.

Canadians more worried about climate change, support Kyoto targets: poll

OTTAWA (CP) - Climate change has jumped dramatically on the scale of Canadians' worries over the last year and most people want the government to meet Kyoto targets, according to an environmental poll.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...a1d&k=45318

Good news.

Cue all the tired old opinions that Kyoto is useless. It's so interesting to hear that one....for the thousandth time.

If reports about the Conservative environmental plan are true they are out of step with a huge majority of Canadians on this issue. They should have had more than 70 odd people in their focus group!!

Kind of like saying "Sorry if you're too stupid to see what we were talking about".

What she left out was that it appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester TO PARTISAN IDIOTS. To the rest of the world it just appeared like he was stating he wouldn't be swayed by protesters in general.

Name political donors, Liberals urge top Tories

Ottawa -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper and members of his cabinet who have run for the leadership in the past decade should be asked to divulge the names of their political donors, the Liberal Party's top executive said yesterday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Don't hold yer breath. Naming their donors would be death for Harper no doubt. Can you say USA?

Who would have thunk it...the Conservatives hire pollsters to tell them how to act.

Sort of like Frank Luntz I guess....he is a pollster. They're no doubt also following his model on the environment...i.e. don't say "global warming"...say "climate change".

Details here: http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/28/1/

scroll to "Luntz advises Conservatives to not talk about “global warming”"

But again....who would have guessed that Conservatives hire pollsters to tell them how to behave!

ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF ALL ISSUES!!!!

I'm flabbergasted.

Focus groups (see "Harper hires polling firm to guide his path on environment" topic) revealed, and now expensive polling PAID FOR BY CANADIANS performed shortly after the election to find out if his five priorities are popular or not?

Harper didn't take long to lose his way on the whole accountability and corruption thing.

WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR WHAT IS CLEARLY PARTISAN POLLING???

He hides from the media like a little boy.

He is a wimp.

And his shills engage in cowardly attacks on the media over nothing. That supposed misrepresentation thing by the CBC is a joke!! I have never seen such a baseless and contrived criticizm before. It is bizarre.

TOUGHEN UP HARPER, FOR GODSAKE.

FACE THE MEDIA, THEY ARE THE PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVE....SO OF COURSE YOU WILL GET TOUGH QUESTIONS.

INSTEAD OF CRYING THAT THE MEDIA DOESNT LOVE YOU JUST ANSWER THEIR QUESIONS.

Yes, I know the lad is not reading this, but perhaps if a shill reads it he or she can pass it on to Steve.

[gerryhatrick]

Guess truth and facts are "anti-Harper" now.

1984 has arrived.

Where's RB? We need someone to quote you some rules, no?

[jbg]

Guess truth and facts are "anti-Harper" now. 1984 has arrived.

What opinion did I express? I was posting this purely for convenience, in order to help people attack Harper and restore the virtuous, clean, pure as driven snow Liberal Party to office.

Where's RB? We need someone to quote you some rules, no?

Which rules did I break. I have never attacked you.

[geoffrey]

Guess truth and facts are "anti-Harper" now.

1984 has arrived.

Where's RB? We need someone to quote you some rules, no?

Hyperbole mixed with ignorance only makes you look like a fool.

Anyways, I guess truth and fact are only on your side of the argument right gerry? I'm sure we'll all listen to your "facts" and "truth" (no facts as of yet from you actually, just conjecture) when you depart from your intellectual hermitage.

Statements like "He is a wimp," or unfounded slander like "Don't hold yer breath. Naming their donors would be death for Harper no doubt. Can you say USA?" isn't contributing to the argument.

Please gerry, if these are facts, show me a listing of comfirmed US donors to Harper's leadership campaign? The burden of proof is with you when you make such claims.

[jbg]

Please gerry, if these are facts, show me a listing of comfirmed US donors to Harper's leadership campaign? The burden of proof is with you when you make such claims.

To quote someone gerryhatrick no doubt admires (and I do admire gerryhatrick's posting), and as a very great leader of a very great democracy once said: "A proof is a proof (Link) What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven."

[Hicksey]

This is a listing of GH's posts. There are more than just him around here that cannot live a minute without spewing garbage about Harper.

[jbg]

This is a listing of GH's posts. There are more than just him around here that cannot live a minute without spewing garbage about Harper.

The first post listed is not gerryhatrick's. The way I compiled this was, in my Yahoo inbox (from which I eliminate duplicates from a thread systematically), taking the thread opener of any thread substantially about Harper. There was no effort to single GH out, nor did I desire that result.

[Hicksey]

This is a listing of GH's posts. There are more than just him around here that cannot live a minute without spewing garbage about Harper.

The first post listed is not gerryhatrick's. The way I compiled this was, in my Yahoo inbox (from which I eliminate duplicates from a thread systematically), taking the thread opener of any thread substantially about Harper. There was no effort to single GH out, nor did I desire that result.

My mistake. But looking at the name its not hard to see how one would make that assumption.

GH = no one important ...

[jbg]

My mistake. But looking at the name its not hard to see how one would make that assumption.

GH = no one important ...

GH is an excellent poster, and a real treasure of this board.

[Hicksey]

My mistake. But looking at the name its not hard to see how one would make that assumption.

GH = no one important ...

GH is an excellent poster, and a real treasure of this board.

I have to applaud your mastery of sarcasm.

[jbg]

My mistake. But looking at the name its not hard to see how one would make that assumption.

GH = no one important ...

GH is an excellent poster, and a real treasure of this board.

I have to applaud your mastery of sarcasm.

Moi?

[uOttawaMan]

Careface

[jbg]

Careface

What does that mean?

[gc1765]

This is a listing of GH's posts. There are more than just him around here that cannot live a minute without spewing garbage about Harper.

Apparently there are people on this board who can't live a minute without bashing gerryhatrick either:

GH = no one important ...

GH is an excellent poster, and a real treasure of this board.

I have to applaud your mastery of sarcasm.

Hypocrisy?

[Hicksey]

This is a listing of GH's posts. There are more than just him around here that cannot live a minute without spewing garbage about Harper.

Apparently there are people on this board who can't live a minute without bashing gerryhatrick either:

GH = no one important ...

GH is an excellent poster, and a real treasure of this board.

I have to applaud your mastery of sarcasm.

Hypocrisy?

Give me a break. Unlike others I do not make a habit of this. If you had researched that before you posted it, you would know that.

Some days GH's obsession with making something out of nothing and then on that basis proceed to call Harper things much worse than we have GH here, gets to a person. If GH doesn't like it, then maybe he ought to think twice before he does it. While in this country one is afforded free speech rights, one is not guaranteed not to have to deal with the consequences of what comes out when he exercises that right.

[gc1765]

Give me a break. Unlike others I do not make a habit of this. If you had researched that before you posted it, you would know that.

Some days GH's obsession with making something out of nothing and then on that basis proceed to call Harper things much worse than we have GH here, gets to a person. If GH doesn't like it, then maybe he ought to think twice before he does it. While in this country one is afforded free speech rights, one is not guaranteed not to have to deal with the consequences of what comes out when he exercises that right.

Well I certainly didn't mean to single you out specifically, I was just pulling quotes from this thread. There are a lot of other posters on this forum who love to bash gerryhatrick. Why is it OK to bash him/her but not OK to bash Harper?

[Hicksey]

Give me a break. Unlike others I do not make a habit of this. If you had researched that before you posted it, you would know that.

Some days GH's obsession with making something out of nothing and then on that basis proceed to call Harper things much worse than we have GH here, gets to a person. If GH doesn't like it, then maybe he ought to think twice before he does it. While in this country one is afforded free speech rights, one is not guaranteed not to have to deal with the consequences of what comes out when he exercises that right.

Well I certainly didn't mean to single you out specifically, I was just pulling quotes from this thread. There are a lot of other posters on this forum who love to bash gerryhatrick. Why is it OK to bash him/her but not OK to bash Harper?

I never said that.

When there is a basis to bash Harper under which there is some kind of reasoning that makes sense to do so, then do it. I dumped on him pretty hard over Fortier and Emerson and it was well deserved.

What GH often does is create a tempest over nothing. Posters like Black Dog, while they may bash Harper usually have a coherent argument and one can understand why they feel as they do. I cannot say the same about GH. Almost everything he whines about he has no reason for whining about other then his obsessive hate of Harper.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well I certainly didn't mean to single you out specifically, I was just pulling quotes from this thread. There are a lot of other posters on this forum who love to bash gerryhatrick. Why is it OK to bash him/her but not OK to bash Harper?

It's not really ok to bash either. This should be a forum for debating political issues. There are a set of rules of behaviour on this forum. Gerry ignores all of them. He isn't here to debate, he is just here to attack Harper and his supporters. Gerry is condescending and rude to any opposing viewpoints.

Should I start a thread of all comments in which Gerry calls the actions of Stephen Harper or people on this board idiotic, moronic or foolish? Gerry used to defend those actions as attacks of *behaviour* rather than personal attacks. Now that he knows he isn't subject to the rules of the forum his just ignores them.

Those statements are all inappropriate and lower the tone of the board.

Would you like me to link to all of Gerry's attacks on behaviour?

[gerryhatrick]

It's not really ok to bash either. This should be a forum for debating political issues. There are a set of rules of behaviour on this forum. Gerry ignores all of them.

You, sir, are an admitted troll. You've more than once come out and indicated that your only goal is to get others "off track".

Several other posters have commented that you scream over any critisism of Harper, calling it "hate".

I critisize Harper. I don't like his Global Warming avoidance. I don't like his press avoidance. I don't like him using the troops for political gain. I could go on, but you get the picture. Because I post news articles that expose these things about Harper you have decided I am your political enemy. I am quite convinced that you are employeed by Harper in some capacity. You are CPC through and through. Assuch, you nit twit around the forum accusing anyone of critisizing Harper of not obeying the rules or of hating the man.

Grow the #$%K up for gawdsake.

[gerryhatrick]

What GH often does is create a tempest over nothing.

I post news items about Harpers actions.

And I didn't create his tempest with the press gallery, he did. I'm entitled to my opinion about it.

You're another partisan who can't accept critisism of your beloved Harper without accusing others of "hate".

Notice I have never accused others on this forum of "hate" over all of the attacks on Layton or Martin ect ect.

Your double-standard is showing.

[gerryhatrick]

By the way....

RB, Hicksey, and jbh have provided me some motivation, so I must thank them.

I will scour the web everyday for whatever news - large and small - regarding Harper that exposes him as the failed PM that he so clearly is.

He is not a leader, he's an electioneer. Nothing more. I'll help you three see that. As we get closer to another election and as things like his so-called "green plan 2" come out there will be PLENTY of information to post which exposes him for what he is.

Thanks.

[gc1765]

When there is a basis to bash Harper under which there is some kind of reasoning that makes sense to do so, then do it. I dumped on him pretty hard over Fortier and Emerson and it was well deserved.

What GH often does is create a tempest over nothing. Posters like Black Dog, while they may bash Harper usually have a coherent argument and one can understand why they feel as they do. I cannot say the same about GH. Almost everything he whines about he has no reason for whining about other then his obsessive hate of Harper.

It's not really ok to bash either. This should be a forum for debating political issues. There are a set of rules of behaviour on this forum. Gerry ignores all of them. He isn't here to debate, he is just here to attack Harper and his supporters. Gerry is condescending and rude to any opposing viewpoints.

Should I start a thread of all comments in which Gerry calls the actions of Stephen Harper or people on this board idiotic, moronic or foolish? Gerry used to defend those actions as attacks of *behaviour* rather than personal attacks. Now that he knows he isn't subject to the rules of the forum his just ignores them.

Those statements are all inappropriate and lower the tone of the board.

Would you like me to link to all of Gerry's attacks on behaviour?

Good, it seems that we all agree that's it's not OK to bash people, only to bash their arguments. Whether it is a politican, or a fellow poster, how about we avoid personal attacks? Just as there are people who attack harper personally, there are also people who will attack fellow posters personally. It also seems as though there are people on this forum who will defend harper when he is attacked, but will turn a blind eye when someone attacks a fellow poster, and even occasionally join in on the attacks. That does not make for very good debate in my opinion. While I may disagree with some things gerryhatrick has said about other people, I would never turn around and insult him or her in response. That would not only be hypocritical, but it would also make things worse, as it takes two to fight but only one to ignore the comments and report them to the moderator. I'm not trying to single out either of you for insulting others, but why is it that you condemn gerryhatrick for insulting Harper but don't condemn others on this board who personally attack gerryhatrick, rather than attacking his or her ideas?

[Ricki Bobbi]

You, sir, are an admitted troll. You've more than once come out and indicated that your only goal is to get others "off track".

I critisize Harper. I don't like his Global Warming avoidance. I don't like his press avoidance. I don't like him using the troops for political gain. I could go on, but you get the picture. Because I post news articles that expose these things about Harper you have decided I am your political enemy. I am quite convinced that you are employeed by Harper in some capacity. You are CPC through and through. Assuch, you nit twit around the forum accusing anyone of critisizing Harper of not obeying the rules or of hating the man.

Grow the #$%K up for gawdsake.

Never admitted I was a troll, where did that come from?

You have gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. That is the issue people have taken with you.

Your articles don't even come close to proving the point you think they do.

I am only employed for Harper *in some capacity* if you truly believe that every corporation in the company is in the employ of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Don't swear at me jerk. Totally uncalled for.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Just as there are people who attack harper personally, there are also people who will attack fellow posters personally.

I'm not trying to single out either of you for insulting others, but why is it that you condemn gerryhatrick for insulting Harper but don't condemn others on this board who personally attack gerryhatrick, rather than attacking his or her ideas?

Gerry just told me to "grow the F**k up. Hw does this fit into your concept of fairness and justice?

[gc1765]

Just as there are people who attack harper personally, there are also people who will attack fellow posters personally.

I'm not trying to single out either of you for insulting others, but why is it that you condemn gerryhatrick for insulting Harper but don't condemn others on this board who personally attack gerryhatrick, rather than attacking his or her ideas?

Gerry just told me to "grow the F**k up. Hw does this fit into your concept of fairness and justice?

Fairness and justice would be report the post to the moderator, and let him decide what to do about it. Aside from that, ignore the post.