gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 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. If you look at the quote in the OP you will notice that he refers to the government. And I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if the mission hadn't been extended until 2009 the troops would have lost the support of this Government? You don't think much of this Government, it seems. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 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. It's only *obvious* to you Gerry... Does the prospect of a Conservative majority drive you crazy? With Iggy winning super weekend bigger than expected it should. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 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. It's only *obvious* to you Gerry... If you don't have something intelligent to say then why bother? You cannot speak to the details of my posts, so you make snide comments and post smilies. Good for you, Rickie, but the fact of Harpers words remain. They are quite clear, and B.Max and Argus are perhaps the only two righties here with enough honesty to acknowledge them. You, on the other hand, can only post shrill "you're wrong!!" posts. Well, if I'm wrong then feel free to explain his words. Tell me what they mean to you if not what I've defined them as. I'll make it simple for you and give you just one quote to comment on: In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension he said: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." About that I have said: "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." If you have another translation then provide it. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension he said:"We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." About that I have said: "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." If you have another translation then provide it. You still haven't taken the leap to proving Harper was *using* the troops. He wanted to provide them with support. He never threatened them with loss of support as he and his caucus all voted to extend the mission. Answer this question, you have ignored seven times now. What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 TOPIC....................................................................................Thread Starter Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.......................................gerryhatrick Harper STILL has not complied with Chief Electoral Officer request.gerryhatrick Support for Harper Government dropping.....................................gerryhatrick Harper is a wimp..........................................................................ge ryhatrick CP: Harper hit right notes, but missed political marks....................gerryhatrick Harper hires polling firm to guide his path on environment.............gerryhatrick Harper is ruining our ability to act as an honest broker..................gerryhatrick Harper flubs the Israeli/Lebanon crisis. .........................................gerryhatrick Stephen Harper's new game: Hide-the-Priority..............................gerryhatrick Harper thinks terrorism is our "most serious challange".................gerryhatrick Stephen Harper already using terrorism for political gain!...............gerryhatrick So now Harper thinks Canada doesn't support the troops?..............gerryhatrick Oh yeah. No partisan bias from gerry. No he wants an 'open debate' so long as it's understood from the get go that he's 'right' He's obviously got an open mind and has no bias out look at all. He really doesn't. What he does have is a compulsion. Hope someone's paying you for all this 'grass-rooter' work, gerry. Gerry's world: Harper=Bush=Hitler. If you disagree you're just a stupid neocon. Frankly, emoticons are the only response he's worth. . Quote
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension he said:"We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." About that I have said: "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." If you have another translation then provide it. You still haven't taken the leap to proving Harper was *using* the troops. He wanted to provide them with support. He never threatened them with loss of support as he and his caucus all voted to extend the mission. Answer this question, you have ignored seven times now. What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Unsurprisingly, you are unable to deal with Harpers words in any specific fashion. Try some honesty Ricki, it feels good. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? . Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question:What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? . Thanks, but no. It's a silly question and was originally asked in the midst of a raving ad hom attack. Thus, it was ignored. And now it's being used as some kind of dumb "gotcha" thing. More to the topic, why don't you take a crack at this one: In Parliament during the debate before the vote on the mission extension Harper said: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." About that I have said: "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." You have also disagreed with that translation I believe. As I asked Rickie, who failed to address it, do you have another translation? If so, provide it. If not, I will assume ya'll are just reacting to legitimate criticism of your great leader with dishonest denial and deflection. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
sharkman Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question Gerry:What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? I don't think he's interested in actual debate. It makes him anxious. Quote
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Thanks, but no. It's a silly question and was originally asked in the midst of a raving ad hom attack. No it's a completely reasonable question: If he extended the mission without going to parliament you'd be ragging on him for that. Since he stated that he wants to get parliaments' support first you still rag on him. IOW you are playing partisan games. It's pretty obvious if one does a quick search of your thread starters. Try a little honesty for once gerry. It feels great. . Quote
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question Gerry:What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Stop trolling Ricki. You won't answer my question (which is directly related to the topic, btw) so why would I bother with yours? Oh, and I think you're cross-posting now also. Do I need to quote the rules for you? Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 I think we all know the answer and that's why he won't answer. If he really does have Alzheimer's I would feel bad for mocking him. *But* there is definitely a screw loose of some kind. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
sharkman Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Stop trolling Ricki. You won't answer my question (which is directly related to the topic, btw) so why would I bother with yours? Oh, and I think you're cross-posting now also. Do I need to quote the rules for you? Geez, how 'bout because his question was asked first, Gerry. Of course you're not interested in actual debate. Just more hate speech of Harper. A one trick poney you are, pal. Quote
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 Several posters don't think that Harper is tying support for the troops to support for the mission with his words. The topic post had three examples of it. At his caucus retreat he called Liberals "divided" on "whether or not to support our troops". This was a reference to the mission extension vote in May, that is obvious. So there is a blatent example of Harper claiming that support for the troops hinges on support for the mission. A couple of honest folks who support Harper's words have admitted that this is what he is doing. Many others cannot, and scoff at the obvious meaning of his words without actually answering to them. Who among them will say openly that Harper's comments to his caucus were not referencing the May vote on the mission extension? Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Geez, how 'bout because his question was asked first, Gerry. Of course you're not interested in actual debate. Just more hate speech of Harper. A one trick poney you are, pal. I'm a troll because I ask Gerry to ask a question that he obviously doesn't want to answer. Must just add to Gerry's anger that he can't even find people to respect his AUTHORITY even online. C'mon Gerry just answer the question... Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 Several posters don't think that Harper is tying support for the troops to support for the mission with his words. Yet only one poster is disingenuous enough to pretend he wouldn’t be ragging on him no matter what he said, and continually tries to make a mountain out of nothing. He wants parliament to support the mission. So what? . Quote
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 He wants parliament to support the mission.So what? No problem with that. It's "mission EXTENSION" actually, to be clear. The problem lies in him threatening non-support of the troops if the mission isn't extended. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 No problem with that. It's "mission EXTENSION" actually, to be clear.The problem lies in him threatening non-support of the troops if the mission isn't extended. Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." The problem lies in him threatening non-support of the troops if the mission isn't extended. No gerry. The only thing he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate. He supports the mission obviously. He would like to get parliaments support as well instead of going maverick which would really get you riled, right? Catch -22 for Harper and anyone with a compulsion to attack him. He wants to put it to parliament and put it to a vote, or debate and he'd like their support. That's it. That's all. Quite bizarre you must extrapolate giving them a vote on it with threatening them. But then considering the knee-jerk paranoid compulsion of yours to extrapolate everything anyone says into something they didn't say I'm not surprised. . Quote
Wilber Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 And I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that if the mission hadn't been extended until 2009 the troops would have lost the support of this Government? You don't think much of this Government, it seems. There is a difference between loosing the support of the government and not knowing whether you have it. I think this Government is doing fine for the most part. My problem is with part of this Parliament. They are given a chance to vote on something yet can do nothing but whine about it and complain they are being bullied. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
gerryhatrick Posted October 1, 2006 Author Report Posted October 1, 2006 The problem lies in him threatening non-support of the troops if the mission isn't extended. No gerry. The only thing he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate. He supports the mission obviously. He would like to get parliaments support as well instead of going maverick which would really get you riled, right? Are you a co-worker of RB? I've never seen such blatent willful ignoring of reality over an issue. You said "he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate." That makes zero sense. What I'm criticizing Harper for is his cynical use of the troops. It's political manouvering, and it's despicable. All Canadians should stand up against this kind of thing. The political price of using the troops should be swift and clear. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Ricki Bobbi Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 There is a difference between loosing the support of the government and not knowing whether you have it. I think this Government is doing fine for the most part. My problem is with part of this Parliament. They are given a chance to vote on something yet can do nothing but whine about it and complain they are being bullied. Great point, which leads to ... Answer the question Gerry: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
killjoy Posted October 1, 2006 Report Posted October 1, 2006 You said "he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate." That makes zero sense. Um. No. You're saying that. You're calling it a threat when it isn't. Now you're going to play games because it's all laid out for you there and you can't escape it. And you're right it doesn't make sense. That's my point. Could it be that you're finally catching on? . 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.