Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[gerryhatrick]

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.

I never said Harper was threatening anyone with a "chance to vote or debate".

I said he was threatening our troops with a loss of support if his mission extension wasn't passed.

His words clearly do that, and the fact that you and your pal RB can only repeat an irrelavent question and avoid the topic issue demonstrates how solid this topic is.

But please, keep bumping it. Canadians need to know how their troops are being cynically used for political purposes.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I never said Harper was threatening anyone with a "chance to vote or debate".

I said he was threatening our troops with a loss of support if his mission extension wasn't passed.

His words clearly do that, and the fact that you and your pal RB can only repeat an irrelavent question and avoid the topic issue demonstrates how solid this topic is.

But please, keep bumping it. Canadians need to know how their troops are being cynically used for political purposes.

The question is relevant. So ...

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[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.

In answer to the bolded non-question above, no I would not have.

Now, can you explain how my interpretation of Harpers words is wrong, exactly? No, didn't think so.

He is using the troops, and that's obviously got you running scared. Worried about losing your job perhaps.

edit: I'm curious, do you feel a bit moronic for harping extensively about a question not answered now that it turns out it originally wasn't even a question?

[Ricki Bobbi]

In answer to the bolded non-question above, no I would not have.

Now, can you explain how my interpretation of Harpers words is wrong, exactly? No, didn't think so.

He is using the troops, and that's obviously got you running scared. Worried about losing your job perhaps.

You go back a week to proved a false answer?

Then continue your lies about my employer?

So ...

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[gerryhatrick]

In answer to the bolded non-question above, no I would not have.

Now, can you explain how my interpretation of Harpers words is wrong, exactly? No, didn't think so.

He is using the troops, and that's obviously got you running scared. Worried about losing your job perhaps.

You go back a week to proved a false answer?

Huh? That was the origin of your "you didn't answer my question" compaints.

You posted that non-question, and then several posts later complained:

Gerry, you still haven't answered the question.

Now you deny even this obvious reality.

First you deny the obvious meaning of Harpers words, then you create a pathetic side-issue about an off-topic question that was never asked.

Keep it up RB, it's quite funny to watch.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You won't answer the question because it's blatantly obvious.

In your sick, dementia addled mind Harper is evil.

So no matter what he does is wrong.

You would have made it sound like a horrible injustice if he hadn't put extending the mission to a vote in Parliament.

Too bad he'll be the Prime Minister for the rest of the decade.

You can't answer the question because it will highlight your hatred, dementia and inability to treat *anything* Harper does fairly.

Want to prove me wrong?

The question is relevant. So ...

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[killjoy]

I said he was threatening our troops with a loss of support if his mission extension wasn't passed.

No you didn't. Seems you "know" what Harper said and yet can't remember what you said:

"We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." he said then. The threat: if you don't vote for this mission the troops won't have the support of Parliament.

So again, you must support the mission as Harper defines it, or you are not supporting the troops.

Whenever you figure out what your point is supposed to be or what it is you're talking about ---- the troops being threatened or parliament --- you just let us know, k?

.

[betsy]

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.

It's a silly question? In your own opinion perhaps...largely due to the fact that you know it blows a hole in your argument. You don't know how to answer it.

It is a legitimate question...a crucial part of the argument. It is being used as a question in solid RATIONAL DEBATE.

You are basing this WHOLE thread on the premise of YOUR OWN TRANSLATION....your adamant and stubborn insistence for us all to rely on it.

This is like reading The Sun and with you urging us to believe the headline "Gerry is Bin Laden In Disguse!" ...simply because of the opinion of one person who sez "...because I just know it! Take my word for it! Hah!"

The question being asked of you is an attempt to elevate your topic into something rational...they're giving you a chance to put legs on your premise to stand on! That is, IF you know how to answer the question.

[gerryhatrick]

I guess this needs repeating:

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.

Now, that's concerning only one of the three examples in the topic post. And yes, that is threatening a loss of support for the troops.

Since making that despicable comment in Parliament Harper said the Liberals were "divided" on whether or not to "support the troops" in a reference to the May vote in Parliament.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry once again you try to deflect answering question that are asking for you to show proof of your claims of you translation, and once again you will n0ot answer these directly. Which means to me and most other that you are full of yourself. You have lost the respect of most people here, because of the way you are and the methods you use. So where that would probably bother most members it does not bother you. Maybe it is because you like being an outcast? There has not been one thread where you have made any justification for your feelings, other then you hate Harper. So sad man. None of what you will do or say here for quite some time will taken seriously by the people of this site, because you just have to be you. Maybe you need someone to look up to or emulate so you can actually be more acceptable by your peers. I know you will not choose Harper as an idol, but why not try Belinda. You would fit right in with that style. You a bit of an airhead when it comes to relationships, and getting screwed by those who would claim to like her, only to have political fallout at every turn. But tenacity to carry on even when most of the serious people have written her off. That must sound familiar to you. I am not sure if there is anything you could do to ever be taken seriously here again. You are only seen here as a source of laughs and giggles. As I said so sad.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry once again you try to deflect answering question that are asking for you to show proof of your claims of you translation,

"Translation" is a bad word. Sorry for using it.

It's not necessary to translate Harpers words, they are quite clear.

Instead of attacking me with another long rambling paragraph, how about commenting on the topic. What do you understand from Harpers words?

[watching&waiting]

Harper was simply trying to show that the parliament was behind the troops and their mission from that point forward. This is really an easy thing to understand because there was a change of government and during the elections many things were said that could have been miscontrued to show that support for our troops and their mission many have suffered during all the election posturing. This was just a simply show of continued support for what was already there previously. Is that so hard to understand. It really makes good sense when you put it in its context.

[gerryhatrick]

Harper was simply trying to show that the parliament was behind the troops and their mission from that point forward. .....It really makes good sense when you put it in its context.

Ok, so in the context of a debate over a 2 year mission extension Harper says,

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

And you don't see that as him saying the troops may not have the support of Parliament if the mission extension vote didn't go his way?

It wasn't a confidence vote, if you're suggesting that a return to the Liberals would have meant a loss of support for the troops that's not applicable.

[watching&waiting]

No I do not. You must also realise that the mission was still going to be there for quite sometime as the Liberal were the ones who ordered it and also they were the ones who changed the directive to battlefront instead of peacekeeping. Since the posturing in the elections would give many outsiders the thought that Canada was fractured about this, The new government decided to allow debate and then a vote tpo extend the mission. This would show that even though we may have arguments from both sides and opposing views, that after debate and in the cold light of day, the vote showed that the government was moving forward with a proper support not only for the current mission but also to extend it even further. That is just how nthe government works. You forget Harper did not need to have the vote and he could have extended it without consulting parliament. This way it afforded better optic for all parties, after a particularly divisive election. Instead of blaming Harper, you should see that this was extending a hand accross the floor to the opposition, to help heal the wounds suffered during the election.

What you consider using was really nothing more then trying to bring the house to a better starting ground. Now if you want to still say Harper used the troops, in a way he did. But it was for very different reasons and at no time were they or their mission in trouble of losing government support. They were used to bring peace once agin to parliament. Which is probably a good fit with what their purposes are as well.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Ok, so in the context of a debate over a 2 year mission extension Harper says,

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

And you don't see that as him saying the troops may not have the support of Parliament if the mission extension vote didn't go his way?

It wasn't a confidence vote, if you're suggesting that a return to the Liberals would have meant a loss of support for the troops that's not applicable.

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[jbg]

Do you honestly think the Taliban are monitoring Canadian domestic politics and specifically attacking Candian troops in an attempt to weaken the resolve here at home?

There are a lot of Afghanis who have fled to Canada over the years, and they remain in touch with relatives and friends back home. Without a doubt, Canada's contribution to the efforts there, and how the news of casualties is being received is part of that communication. Also without a doubt, there are some of those Afghanis who sympathise with the Taliban. The message they could well be sending is "You should see the panic and horror the Canadians show every time you kill one of them! Without question, if you can kill some more the government will fall and the opposition will bring their soldiers home! It will be a major blow to the morale of the infidels supporting Karzai!

Response here (click snapback).

[gerryhatrick]

Ok, so in the context of a debate over a 2 year mission extension Harper says,

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

And you don't see that as him saying the troops may not have the support of Parliament if the mission extension vote didn't go his way?

It wasn't a confidence vote, if you're suggesting that a return to the Liberals would have meant a loss of support for the troops that's not applicable.

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

Ricki, I already pointed out to you that your question wasn't even a question. Here is what you said before you started complaining that I wasn't answering your "question":

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.

And I have answered it with "no I would not". I think he was "despicably undemocratic" with the way he called a snap vote on such an important issue! But then, that's probably just my "hatred" of Harper, right?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[gerryhatrick]

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.

Now, that's concerning only one of the three examples in the topic post. And yes, that is threatening a loss of support for the troops.

Since making that despicable comment in Parliament Harper said the Liberals were "divided" on whether or not to "support the troops" in a reference to the May vote in Parliament.

This obvious leveraging of the troops to bolster support for the mission is despicable.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[gerryhatrick]

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

I answered it.

Do you have any idea how foolish you look asking that over and over again? It's like an admission by you of complete defeat....you're reduced to repeating your stupid question becuase you cannot challange the facts of the topic...and of course the topic angers you so much that you also want to troll and bait and pollute it in the hopes that it will be locked.

Don't worry, if this is locked I will repost it. It's an important point and I hope Harper gets clued in because I don't like seeing support for the troops used as a political bargaining chip. Do you?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Do you have any idea how foolish you look asking that over and over again?

As long as you continue to avoid answering the question I know that the vast majority of posters here don't think I look foolish. Soooooo....

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

Don't worry, if this is locked I will repost it.

I do appreciate you admitting to planning on breaking the rules. *If* the thread gets locked that should get you a warining. But you have gotten away with so much you should be ok.

[gerryhatrick]

Do you have any idea how foolish you look asking that over and over again?

As long as you continue to avoid answering the question I know that the vast majority of posters here don't think I look foolish. Soooooo....

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

If I was avoiding it I wouldn't have gone back and found the original "question", which wasn't a question at all, and answered that.

If I was avoiding it I wouldn't be talking about it...responding to this....what is it, the 15th time you've posted it?

You don't think I've answered it, I think I have, you keep asking and I'll never answer it again. Keep trolling it, you'll come up empty.

We both know that the clearly demonstrated cynical political usage of the troops that Harper has committed has got you seeing red Ricki. Not over the fact that he's using the troops like that, but over the fact that I'm pointing it out so clearly.

[Ricki Bobbi]

If I was avoiding it I wouldn't have gone back and found the original "question", which wasn't a question at all, and answered that.

If I was avoiding it I wouldn't be talking about it...responding to this....what is it, the 15th time you've posted it?

You don't think I've answered it, I think I have, you keep asking and I'll never answer it again. Keep trolling it, you'll come up empty.

We both know that the clearly demonstrated cynical political usage of the troops that Harper has committed has got you seeing red Ricki. Not over the fact that he's using the troops like that, but over the fact that I'm pointing it out so clearly.

If you wanted to answer the question you have had 15 opportunities to do so again and put an end to it. You don't want to answer because it will point out your hypocrisy and hatred for Harper.

Please don't PM me. Attacking me like you continue to do on the threads is one thing. But PMing is reserved for people you wish to communicate privately with. I have no desire to communicate privately with you. Ever. Thank you.

[gerryhatrick]

Please don't PM me. Attacking me like you continue to do on the threads is one thing. But PMing is reserved for people you wish to communicate privately with. I have no desire to communicate privately with you. Ever. Thank you.

Ha ha! I knew you'd piss your pants if I PM'd you.

All I said was that reposting a thread you got locked with all your trolling wouldn't be breaking the rules.

I would have put it in the topic, but you edited you post after I'd responded to it.

And I'll PM you anytime I wish to communicate privately with you, thanks. I do it to spare the board my response to any of your posts that are particularily inane.

If you don't have anything to say about the topic Ricki why not just stop bumping it?

EDIT: you imply I attacked you in my PM with your comment "attacking me....on the threads is one thing". I did not. Keep things honest Ricki, please.