Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[gerryhatrick]

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is:

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

And where did that "translation" come from?

That's my translation betsy. I am able to translate what people are saying in most cases, especially when it's as obvious as this is. It's not a gift or anything, most people have the talent.

[gerryhatrick]

It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

What Harper is trying to do is leverage support for the mission.

I agree.

He should do it without putting troop support in question.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I agree.

He should do it without putting troop support in question.

Gerry, you still haven't answered the question. So I'll put it in really small words for you.

What would you have said if Harper did not get the support of Parliament for making the mission in Afghanistan longer?

[gerryhatrick]

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

And if Harper hadn't put extending the mission to a vote in Parliament you would have started threads over and over and over again about he was being despicably undemocratic.

We get your point Gerry. You don't like the Prime Minister. You just spread lies about him. Interpret everything he does as negatively as possible. Always change the topic of every thread to an attack on the man.

If you don't hate him I hate to see how you treat somebody you do hate!

My only boss is the one who signs my cheques.

Oh I get it, you have never worked so you don't understand what a boss really is.

What a bizarre rant.

Ms Ricki, you had a little fruedian slip, remember? You spoke about the Harper government as "we". As in, it is you. You are part of it, or working for it in some capacity, quite obviously.

It explains why you react to legitimate criticism of Harper with shrill outrage and cries of "hate!"

[Ricki Bobbi]

Question ignored, again so I'll repeat it again?

What would you have said if Harper did not get the support of Parliament for making the mission in Afghanistan longer?

[gerryhatrick]

Question ignored, again so I'll repeat it again?

What would you have said if Harper did not get the support of Parliament for making the mission in Afghanistan longer?

What's interesting is you ignored my question asking if you remembered your Freudian slip which identified you as a member of the Harper government!

In all honesty, I didn't see the first time you asked the question. Maybe it was buried in one of your long personal attack rants, so it was missed.

Since you reminded me in such a juvenile snarky way and given that it's a pretty dumb question I think I'll just pass that one by as a waste of time. Sorry, I can tell you have an itch over it.

[betsy]

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is:

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

And where did that "translation" come from?

That's my translation betsy. I am able to translate what people are saying in most cases, especially when it's as obvious as this is. It's not a gift or anything, most people have the talent.

Well Gerry, no matter how I read it, Harper was using plain and clear English in that statement.

If a plain and simple English statement such as this:

"We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

can be translated by some talented people like yourself to mean like this:

"If this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported."

Then what more with just about any other English statements?

You are using your own translation as a valid form to accuse and crucify a person. And urging others to do the same!

As someone who speaks English as a SECOND language....you are making me very, very nervous.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What's interesting is you ignored my question asking if you remembered your Freudian slip which identified you as a member of the Harper government!

In all honesty, I didn't see the first time you asked the question. Maybe it was buried in one of your long personal attack rants, so it was missed.

Since you reminded me in such a juvenile snarky way and given that it's a pretty dumb question I think I'll just pass that one by as a waste of time. Sorry, I can tell you have an itch over it.

I have answered your question before, I will again. Yes I have volunteered for the party in the past. Yes I will do so in the future. No I don't work for the party, or Government, in any paid capacity.

So I guess you aren't answering the question because your answer would be so obvious. Harper puts the extension of the mission to a vote of Parliament ... so you start a thread attacking him. If Harper hadn't put the extension of the mission to a vote of Parliament ... you *would have* attacked him. At least you are consistent.

Ms Ricki, you had a little fruedian slip, remember?

Really though, the sexism and homophobia is schoolyard stuff. But if that is the level you have to sink to in order to deal with your feelings of rage and powerless at the rest of the decade with Prime Minister Harper governing ... so be it. I think I am figuring you out though. The symptoms are all there. Somebody who truly feels the Government owes them something. Rather than spending your copious amounts of free time raising your income to replace what the Government *should* be providing you with you spend your time attacking the Government, thus fueling your anger and leaving you in a situation less than what you truly deserve.

I feel your pain Gerry.

[gerryhatrick]

Really though, the sexism and homophobia is schoolyard stuff.

I might be a little sexist, but where did you get the homophobia part from? This must be your paranoia or something because I have no idea what else it is.

In any event, maybe you should give all the personal attacks a rest. It's really not contributing to the forum in any kind of positive way.

I think I am figuring you out though. The symptoms are all there. Somebody who truly feels the Government owes them something. Rather than spending your copious amounts of free time raising your income to replace what the Government *should* be providing you with you spend your time attacking the Government, thus fueling your anger and leaving you in a situation less than what you truly deserve.

I feel your pain Gerry.

See, this is what I'm talking about. What is the point of this? It's all nitwittery...absolute nonsensical garbage, punctuated with a smilee.

Ricki, I truely am unhappy with the way Harper is using Canadian troops in the way I described in the topic post.

Genuinely and truely, I disagree with it and I think it is worthy of contempt.

Now, you can disagree with me or feel that it's perfectly OK to leverage the troops to bolster support for the mission, fine. Don't prance around here constantly accusing me of hating Harper because if my criticisms though. It's taken on a silliness that detracts from the forum.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry no need to prance around here?? Maybe he is homophobic

It is just so painfully obvious that you hate Harper and the CPC. Your posts drip with that anger and you have do little to make anyone believe differently. The largest portion of people here will say that Harper is not using the troops, in the way you suggest, but rather you and others are trying to use the troops and there mission as a wedge to try and get at Harper. You certainly do seem to have a lot of time for posting here, but maybe you are retired like myself, or are you stealling time from your employers to do these posts? Or is it your job to be making these posts? Anyway it does not matter, You are welcome to your opinions and we will use our own right to post our opposition to your opinions. I guess I can say it gives me a chance to break up my day.

[scribblet]

It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

Only unmistakable to you apparantly, it is confusing to me how anyone could thing that is so. This type of mindset and spin, illustrates why liberals are no longer fit to run the country.

[gerryhatrick]

It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

Only unmistakable to you apparantly, it is confusing to me how anyone could thing that is so. This type of mindset and spin, illustrates why liberals are no longer fit to run the country.

Gee, that sounded a lot like Harper and his recent melt down over Paul Martin!

How about some rational discussion.

You say that the three examples provided in the OP don't demonstrate Harper using the troops to leverage support for the war. What do they demonstrate then? To me it is clear, as I believe it would be to any objective observer.

[Ricki Bobbi]

How about some rational discussion.

Sexism does not equal rational discussion. See below.

Girl, you gotta read up on these current events before you post.

Condescension and sexist/unfunny jokes does not equal rational discussion. See below.

Whatever lil darlin'!

Creepy sexual references apropos of nothing does not equal rational discussion. See below.

What's interesting is you ignored my question asking if you remembered your Freudian slip which identified you as a member of the Harper government!

[gerryhatrick]

Good grief. that was weird.

Can ANYONE explain to me exactly how the comments by Harper are NOT leveraging the troops to create support for the Afghan mission?

Some right of center posters have proudly admitted it here, and I salute them for being honest.

I am interested to hear from the rest though.

[betsy]

Gee, that sounded a lot like Harper and his recent melt down over Paul Martin!

You mean Paul Martin's sudden break-down? His uncontrollable need to prevaricate?

[betsy]

How about some rational discussion.

Okay.

Since you say you've got this talent for translating, how do you translate Martin's public display of hypocrisy?

A fortune-teller said:

" The Liberals are still in deep s***. Someone will desperately try to take the heat awaaaaaaay from the mess the Liberals are now in.... especially because.... Volpe sez he's here to staaaaay."

[Ricki Bobbi]

Good grief. that was weird.

Can ANYONE explain to me exactly how the comments by Harper are NOT leveraging the troops to create support for the Afghan mission?

Some right of center posters have proudly admitted it here, and I salute them for being honest.

I am interested to hear from the rest though.

You're the one who asked for *rational discussion* despite the numerous examples of your irrationality.

By saying that Harper has "leveraged" the troops you have to cynically misread why Harper put the extension of the vote to Parliament. He put the vote to Parliament too prove the House's support for the mission.

You still haven't answered the question.

How would you have reacted if he had extended the mission *without* a vote in the House?

[betsy]

How about some rational discussion.

First you need to come clean about this claim you've made:

"That's my translation betsy. I am able to translate what people are saying in most cases, especially when it's as obvious as this is. It's not a gift or anything, most people have the talent."

Do you have any proof that your claim is legit? Any certification that you do have this....talent?

Just so to make certain that the posters are not attempting at "rational discussion" with someone who's delusional.

And yes, rational discussion does definitely means answering straight legitimate questions given to you by posters. After all, you created this topic.

[watching&waiting]

Also Gerry maybe answer this: Under whose authority and power do the final say about our troops lie, of all those who are in the House of commons? Also because the house held an all party vote on this, then is it not also to say that this would make the support for the troops to be from all parties, because in the end the result is made up of all parties and the majority then speaks as one voice? Would you not say then, that the one voice is that of the PM? So if you can agree to this, then should it not also be the PM who would say if there were more then one meaning to what he says? This being said then why would anyone think your view of this is anything more then a ruse for your obvious inability to accept Harper as your PM?

[killjoy]

I am interested to hear from the rest though.

No you're not. Not even close. Patently false.

This has already come full circle about 3 times in this thread.

First you contend your 'translation' of his comments amounts to 'leveraging support for him by using the troops'. You say you think it's disgusting.

Others dispute that contention and your translation, and show where others, like say the NDP have specifically said something 'disgusting' word-for-word and you brush it off with an argument about semantics.

Then you get into a bit of flame with someone and then act like you're taking the 'high road' by claiming no one can 'debunk' or 'disprove' your contention which is basically just an opinion formed from your bias translation and your distrust of Harper.

You have no intention of changing your mind; you've already made it clear that there's nothing anyone can say to change your take on your 'translation', so what are you doing challenging people and claiming you're 'interested in hearing the rest' as though you had an open mind or that the conversation could go anywhere but down?

.

[gerryhatrick]

I am interested to hear from the rest though.

No you're not. Not even close. Patently false.

This has already come full circle about 3 times in this thread.

First you contend your 'translation' of his comments amounts to 'leveraging support for him by using the troops'. You say you think it's disgusting.

Others dispute that contention and your translation,

Yes, and the willing blindness by those who dispute my translation of his words can only be considered partisanship.

Translations are not always subjective things, and that is the case here.

It is like translating "I am hungry" into "I want some food".

The ONLY possible translation of Harpers comment in the House back in May regarding the troops is that if the House does not vote for his mission extension to 2009 then the troops might not have support.

That is an explicit translation. How would you translate it?

[Wilber]

The ONLY possible translation of Harpers comment in the House back in May regarding the troops is that if the House does not vote for his mission extension to 2009 then the troops might not have support.

What's your point? If it were only people like you he was refering to, his statement was 100% correct. The troops now know that they have this government's (at least) backing till 2009. That is what I call support.

[killjoy]

Yes, and the willing blindness by those who dispute my translation of his words can only be considered partisanship.

Ahhh the ramblings of an 'open mind'. "Those who dispute me must be partizan". lol!

It's your partisanship that is obviously tainting everything you see in Harper as evidenced by the multiple threads you've started over him.

.

[Higgly]

edit. mis-read of post.

[gerryhatrick]

Yes, and the willing blindness by those who dispute my translation of his words can only be considered partisanship.

Ahhh the ramblings of an 'open mind'. "Those who dispute me must be partizan". lol!

Sorry, but I can see no other explanation for those who are disputing the obvious.

Maybe you and the other rightwingers here should take a lesson from Argus and B.Max, who are honest in admitting what Harper is doing. They have no problem with it, which I disagree with, but at least they are honest about it.

Posters who argue with the obvious meaning of his words are making fools of themselves here.