Harper Interview Sets the Record Straight

[Ricki Bobbi]

She even accused those evil Liberals of "making up" the story about the CPC preparing legislation over the marriage thing. Um, wasn't that a story broken by the Globe and Mail and confirmed by Vic Toews?

Sun Media, FOX news print edition!

Got a source on that gerry? Probably not hey.

Oh well. Public opinion is in favour of the mission in Afghanistan. Must be driving some people crazy. With this turn of events a majority in the spring is a distinct possibility.

[gerryhatrick]

She even accused those evil Liberals of "making up" the story about the CPC preparing legislation over the marriage thing. Um, wasn't that a story broken by the Globe and Mail and confirmed by Vic Toews?

Sun Media, FOX news print edition!

Got a source on that gerry? Probably not hey.

You say please next time you need a source.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I find it interesting that you weren't aware of this. There's a topic on the forum about the planned marriage legislation.

It's just like the convention fees. First they admit it, then deny, then admit again.

The CPC needs to get a better message controller.

[August1991]

Sun Media, FOX news print edition!

Shoot the messenger. Anyway, Rosie di Manno writes in the Toronto Star. Maybe she'll get dismissed like Christie Blatchford as another of those police wives.

I liked these quotes from her column:

The soldiers don't believe in polls, I don't believe in polls," Hillier says. "Unless you put the question this way: Would Canadians be content to allow, because of inaction — partly on our nation's part — the Taliban to reassume control of Afghanistan, with all their extreme ways, and with the whipping of women because their heels click when they walk on asphalt.

"I think the answer's a resounding `No.'"

...

Yet war-battered Afghans are immensely brave and resilient.

If more Canadians shared their stamina, their spine, we'd be a greater people.

If not for Afghanistan, then for us. Or have Canadians so quickly forgotten what happened in Afghanistan the last time the world turned a blind eye, when the Taliban ruled, when Al Qaeda was embraced and 9/11 fomented.

Should Canadians break faith with Afghans, forfeit the passion that rages against injustice, the Taliban will be proven de facto right: that the treacherous West is never to be trusted.

It is up to Harper to articulate the reasons for our presence in Afghanistan and I think a majority of Canadians are receptive to the idea. It doesn't take a PhD in International Relations to understand that Layton's defence of gay marriage somehow lacks credibility when he also takes a pacifist stance.

It is fine to be a social liberal but it is meaningless unless one is prepared to defend liberal values.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You say please next time you need a source.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I find it interesting that you weren't aware of this. There's a topic on the forum about the planned marriage legislation.

It's just like the convention fees. First they admit it, then deny, then admit again.

The CPC needs to get a better message controller.

Is this the quote in which Toews *confirms* the supposed Defence of Religions Act?

"The prime minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward -- the issue of same-sex marriage -- on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful."

Could you *please* provide evdince that actually supports your statement that Toews *confirmed* that the Government will bring forward a Defence of Religions Act? Just because the CTV says he said it doesn't prove anything.

[gerryhatrick]

Sun Media, FOX news print edition!

Shoot the messenger.

Only when the message is so uninformed as this one was.

She came out and blamed the Liberals for making up the story about planned CPC legislation! Does that get a pass from you?

Maybe Harpers comments on Afghanistan would get some more attention if they weren't preceeded by 5 paragraphs of Liberal-bashing nonsense.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Only when the message is so uninformed as this one was.

She came out and blamed the Liberals for making up the story about planned CPC legislation! Does that get a pass from you?

Maybe Harpers comments on Afghanistan would get some more attention if they weren't preceeded by 5 paragraphs of Liberal-bashing nonsense.

There is no support for the *supposed* legislation other than some unnamed sources in a Globe story and the CTV stating that Toews said the legislation was in the works without an actual quote from Toews.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry if you took the time to listen and not just spew your own view, you would see that the whole story about the protections etc was nothing more then a ruse that the Liberals wanted something so desperately to jump upon to discredit the CPC that they jumped on this and then fell face flat. Once again by those who will know the truth, there have been no discussion in Cabinet or with the PM on the issue of protections of those who would have religious reason to not perform SSM. Vic Toes could may have said he has looked at that, but that is his job to first look and then make a decision if it has merit. So far no merit, no thought of ledgislation.

Your need to find somethiing to jump upon was made clear the other day by the old cronies of Chretien government, that if Iggy was to get the leadership the liberals would be deprived of their prime wedge issue in the next possible election, which was afghanistan. Now that was saying alot as they had no chance to take the CPC record to account as it will be a big fact to vote CPC. They definitely will not be able to use Honesty and efficiency as they tool, so the only hope for a wedge issue would be to try and make scarey again the thrust of next election. Does anybody really think that will work again?

Gerry your liberal are a ship with out a leader at this moment, and they past people still open their yaps and harm the party. It looks like once they get a leader he will be hard pressed to find wedge issues to seperate the two parties. If it was not for the fact all the old party cronies are still there and pull many of the strings, I would say that the two parties would grow more toward each other. But we both know that when those cronies pull a string they think there shoudl either be money or power on the end, and they will scream hoendously when they find there is nothing there.

[Shakeyhands]

I wonder if support of the mission were part of a confidence vote would the conservative be willing to bet on it and risk taking it as part of a general election?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I wonder if support of the mission were part of a confidence vote would the conservative be willing to bet on it and risk taking it as part of a general election?

Uhhh, they did that with extending the mission.

[gerryhatrick]

You say please next time you need a source.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I find it interesting that you weren't aware of this. There's a topic on the forum about the planned marriage legislation.

It's just like the convention fees. First they admit it, then deny, then admit again.

The CPC needs to get a better message controller.

Is this the quote in which Toews *confirms* the supposed Defence of Religions Act?

"The prime minister has indicated that he is bringing the matter forward -- the issue of same-sex marriage -- on a free vote. And there may be certain options open to the government as to what the response should be in either event, whether that opening is successful or not successful."

Could you *please* provide evdince that actually supports your statement that Toews *confirmed* that the Government will bring forward a Defence of Religions Act? Just because the CTV says he said it doesn't prove anything.

I didn't say there was a quote from Toews in the article. The Globe conducted an interview with him, and for the CTV to print that Toews confirmed the government plan means they've seen the interview.

This is the part that indicates his confirmation, quite obviously:

If it is defeated, the Globe reported the government intends to bring forward the new Defence of Religions Act as a backup plan.

Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government's intentions in an interview Tuesday with the Globe.

The part you're asking about is clearly presented as something seperate from that confirmation.

What are you suggesting? That the Globe and Mail and CTV are lying? Is this a media conspiracy to bring down Harper? Do they HATE HIM?

[Ricki Bobbi]

The part you're asking about is clearly presented as something seperate from that confirmation.

What are you suggesting? That the Globe and Mail and CTV are lying? Is this a media conspiracy to bring down Harper? Do they HATE HIM?

The Globe never claimed that Toews said it directly. No the CTV doesn't hate Toews, but you do.

Please, when you claim that a Cabinet Minister has said something actually provide evidence that they said it. Like an actuall attributed quote.

Seems like day by day you are becoming more and more isolated in your anti-Harper ism.

Don't worry Gerry. After he wins a majority in the spring he'll probably serve till late 2010 than announce his resignation.

[Shakeyhands]

I wonder if support of the mission were part of a confidence vote would the conservative be willing to bet on it and risk taking it as part of a general election?

Uhhh, they did that with extending the mission.

Uh huh... you know as well as I do that the re up of the "mission" wasn't the same 'mission" as what we find ourselves in now.

Do you actually work for ths CPC RB? Perhapos you could go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you believe in the "mission" so strongly? How bout it?

[gerryhatrick]

The part you're asking about is clearly presented as something seperate from that confirmation.

What are you suggesting? That the Globe and Mail and CTV are lying? Is this a media conspiracy to bring down Harper? Do they HATE HIM?

The Globe never claimed that Toews said it directly. No the CTV doesn't hate Toews, but you do.

Hyuck Hyuck!

I've labelled many people acting cowardly as a "wimp" in the past Ricki, and never hated one of them. In fact, I loved many of them.

Seems like day by day you are becoming more and more isolated in your anti-Harper ism.

More personal nonsense, eh Ricki? The Globe and Mail said it, and the CTV used it for their story. Vic Toews confirmed it, that is the very language of the story. I know that upsets you, but take it out someplace else.

[Ricki Bobbi]

More personal nonsense, eh Ricki? The Globe and Mail said it, and the CTV used it for their story. Vic Toews confirmed it, that is the very language of the story. I know that upsets you, but take it out someplace else.

How was that a personal attack? Don't wory Gerry. The rules here don't apply to you, so you don't have to make up "personal attacks" to prevent yourself from being banned.

Toews didn't confirm anything. You provided *zero* support for this false statement.

Please quit spreading falsehoods about the Government. You will be taken to task every time you do it. If you don't like it then take it "someplace else."

You are becoming increasingly isolated in your disdain for the Government.

I guess it's better for you to vent here than going *postal* somewhere in the real world.

[Argus]

I wonder if support of the mission were part of a confidence vote would the conservative be willing to bet on it and risk taking it as part of a general election?

Probably. Remember that such an election would polarize left and right. It would get all their regular supporters marching determinedly to the polls, split the Liberals, and move a lot of middle-of the road types into their camp simply because they support the military.

Why? Because no one but the NDP can really contemplate just packing up and running. And that's the alternative to supporting the current mission.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Probably. Remember that such an election would polarize left and right. It would get all their regular supporters marching determinedly to the polls, split the Liberals, and move a lot of middle-of the road types into their camp simply because they support the military.

Why? Because no one but the NDP can really contemplate just packing up and running. And that's the alternative to supporting the current mission.

It's still too early for an election. Besides the Conservatives would have to make sure that Iggy wasn't the leader. Iggy supports the mission so an election with Iggy as leader and the mission as the major issue is a bad, bad strategic choice for the conservatives.

Do you actually work for ths CPC RB? Perhapos you could go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you believe in the "mission" so strongly? How bout it?

GerryHatrick has asked many, many times if I work for the CPC. The answer is no. Nobody else has every asked me that question. Hmmmm, you are aware of the rules of one screen name per poster aren't you?

I'll make you a deal Shakey. I'll go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you go and join the Taliban.

[gerryhatrick]

Only when the message is so uninformed as this one was.

She came out and blamed the Liberals for making up the story about planned CPC legislation! Does that get a pass from you?

Maybe Harpers comments on Afghanistan would get some more attention if they weren't preceeded by 5 paragraphs of Liberal-bashing nonsense.

There is no support for the *supposed* legislation other than some unnamed sources in a Globe story and the CTV stating that Toews said the legislation was in the works without an actual quote from Toews.

Actually, the original Globe story is the one that states Toews confirmed that the legislation was planned.

No doubt it's out the window now, given their reaction.

[gerryhatrick]

Do you actually work for ths CPC RB? Perhapos you could go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you believe in the "mission" so strongly? How bout it?

GerryHatrick has asked many, many times if I work for the CPC. The answer is no. Nobody else has every asked me that question.

Because you spoke of the Conservatives as "we".

If I was talking about the Liberals and used the word "we" when describing Liberal actions I would not be surprised to have people accuse me of working for the Liberals. Given that little slip by you and your angry reaction to criticism of Harper it's not such a stretch.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Because you spoke of the Conservatives as "we".

If I was talking about the Liberals and used the word "we" when describing Liberal actions I would not be surprised to have people accuse me of working for the Liberals. Given that little slip by you and your angry reaction to criticism of Harper it's not such a stretch.

As I have said before because I have volunteered in the past, am a party member, and will support them in the future. You still haven't said where you work Gerry. Or confirmed that you are actually employed.

Quid pro quo?

Actually, the original Globe story is the one that states Toews confirmed that the legislation was planned.

No doubt it's out the window now, given their reaction.

To attribute something to somebody you need a quote. Good work avoiding the issue again. I saw that you were taken to task on another thread by a poster tiring of your antics.

Good work Gerry another few weeks and you can have an army of posters here outraged by your actions!

[Shakeyhands]

I'll make you a deal Shakey. I'll go and join the troops in Afghanistan if you go and join the Taliban.

You know what jackass? I have two daughters that are in the Canadian Forces and will most likely find themselves in or near Afghanistan in the next 2 or 3 years, if we are going to be there, I want a very clear stament as to what our goals and objectives are, until then I will not support Harper NOR will I support this open ended mission with no goals and measuring criteria. At this point, the only thing we are doing is being BR's for the US in their war.

Now why don't you go support this mission, by being in Afghanistan, that you so fervently defend?

[jdobbin]

You know what jackass? I have two daughters that are in the Canadian Forces and will most likely find themselves in or near Afghanistan in the next 2 or 3 years, if we are going to be there, I want a very clear stament as to what our goals and objectives are, until then I will not support Harper NOR will I support this open ended mission with no goals and measuring criteria. At this point, the only thing we are doing is being BR's for the US in their war.

Now why don't you go support this mission, by being in Afghanistan, that you so fervently defend?

Hope you're kids are doing good, Shakeyhands.

I think the people that call others treasonous for asking what sort of committment Canada will make and for how long are a little over the top.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You know what jackass? I have two daughters that are in the Canadian Forces and will most likely find themselves in or near Afghanistan in the next 2 or 3 years, if we are going to be there, I want a very clear stament as to what our goals and objectives are, until then I will not support Harper NOR will I support this open ended mission with no goals and measuring criteria. At this point, the only thing we are doing is being BR's for the US in their war.

Now why don't you go support this mission, by being in Afghanistan, that you so fervently defend?

I didn't realize members of your family were forced to join the military Shakey. The decision of your children to join the military doesn't give you the right to behave in such a manner. Swearing at me is ignorant and indefensible.

We live in a free society. People who join the military are defending our rights, including the right to freedom of speech.

Your asking me why I don't go to Aghanistan is flippant and insulting.

Your swearing at my for responding to your flippancy with the same degree of flippancy is unfathomable. What gives you the right to behave in this manner?

[gerryhatrick]

As I have said before because I have volunteered in the past, am a party member, and will support them in the future. You still haven't said where you work Gerry. Or confirmed that you are actually employed.

Quid pro quo?

I didn't give away where I work, as you seemed to have done.

You've already made some jacka$$ remark in the past about me having no job, for whatever reason, so this is just another piece of baiting by yourself. It's none of your business.

To attribute something to somebody you need a quote. Good work avoiding the issue again.

No, I don't. I can use a mainstream media story. And what are you talking about "avoid the issue"? Don't be obtuse.

I saw that you were taken to task on another thread by a poster tiring of your antics.

I don't know, or care what you're blabbering about. Concentrate on yourself instead of yipping about what others have said.

[Rovik]

I wonder if support of the mission were part of a confidence vote would the conservative be willing to bet on it and risk taking it as part of a general election?

Probably. Remember that such an election would polarize left and right. It would get all their regular supporters marching determinedly to the polls, split the Liberals, and move a lot of middle-of the road types into their camp simply because they support the military.

Why? Because no one but the NDP can really contemplate just packing up and running. And that's the alternative to supporting the current mission.

Packing and running? Here we go again with the exaggeration. The NDP want to pull the troops out of their COMBAT role which is different in what the Canadian's role was previously, which the NDP supported.

The Conservatives pushed this down our throats by fast-tracking the vote to extend the mission because they knew what was coming and were afraid they wouldn't win such a vote if tbey wanted a few more months (when the people of the country would sadly see the casualties piling up and the situation in Afghanistan getting worse with the coalition having no set exit plan in sight.)

There are a lot of people out there that support the military but not the mission. And anyone who says that if you don't support the mission, you don't support the soldiers is talking garbage. I can see many people moving to the NDP, especially if Iggy wins the Liberal leadership and if the war in Afghanistan doesn't change for the better.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I didn't give away where I work, as you seemed to have done.

You've already made some jacka$$ remark in the past about me having no job, for whatever reason, so this is just another piece of baiting by yourself. It's none of your business.

No, I don't. I can use a mainstream media story. And what are you talking about "avoid the issue"? Don't be obtuse.

I don't know, or care what you're blabbering about. Concentrate on yourself instead of yipping about what others have said.

Hmmm, three insults and one incredibly weak double standard (i.e. it's your business where I work but not my business where you work?)

You are setting records for rule breaking in a single thread Gerry. Good work!