Stephen Harper Greets the Other Amigos Wearing Khakis

guyser · August 22, 2007

I was referring to your comment.
Harper should 'start walking to MacDonalds' was ignorant. Plain and simple.

Ahem..............Pot meet kettle.

old_bold&cold · August 22, 2007

First off, Canada was the host of these talks and therefore Canada should as most hosts do set the stage for the type of dress. It seems Harper was wanting this to be more of a summer casual rather then formal event. But the narrow minded single track thinkers believe that they should have some say in this. Well guess what guys, you were not invited and were not hosting the event so what ever your biased little minds think about the Casual dress set by the host, is not even worth a slight fleeting moments effort.

The talks are not even government binding, and are not to even be thought of as formal gatherings. This has been explained already, that the only thing that these talks are supposed to be, are a chance for the three leaders to talk and have their say about the directions they feel things should go on varying aspects important only to todays times and events. There never will be an accord made from these or even binding agreements. That has already been said that nothing during these talk will be politically binding, or even said to be agreed to as in a treaty. Call them Gab fests, and in the interests of just getting the feel for each other and the differing wants and needs they all have. So formal dress is not really required and to tell the truth, to show up in formal dress to what has already been said by the host as being acasual event, is more impolite on the part of the formal dressers then it is on the host.

But to all those who seems to put any importance on the dress at these things, maybe you need to get a life. These things are not really important and by basing your opinions on such periphery is just about as crazy as one can get. Most of the worst dictators of the world were dressed formally most of the time they were in public. Hitler comes to mind quite quickly when I think about it. There are just so many others that also come to mind. I think you need to find a better marker of true character, if you want to be more accurate in your assumptions.

Edited August 22, 2007 by old_bold&cold

Michael Bluth · August 22, 2007

First off, Canada was the host of these talks and therefore Canada should as most hosts do set the stage for the type of dress. It seems Harper was wanting this to be more of a summer casual rather then formal event. But the narrow minded single track thinkers believe that they should have some say in this. Well guess what guys, you were not invited and were not hosting the event so what ever your biased little minds think about the Casual dress set by the host, is not even worth a slight fleeting moments effort.

There is the rub.

The single track is to attack the Prime Minister at all costs. It appears to be worth the effort for some people, for some reason. Although the reason escapes me.

I applaud the mods for changing the second part of the title, but the Steve Harper part is disrespectful as well.

Fortunata · August 22, 2007

There is the rub.
The single track is to attack the Prime Minister at all costs. It appears to be worth the effort for some people, for some reason. Although the reason escapes me.

I applaud the mods for changing the second part of the title, but the Steve Harper part is disrespectful as well.

Oh yes, the innocent approach. It must be the attack at all costs because it couldn't be that he actually looked dowdy. Oh my no.

Steve Harper ran under that name in an election. If it's good enough to use it himself surely it is good enough for others to use it.

Michael Bluth · August 23, 2007

Oh yes, the innocent approach. It must be the attack at all costs because it couldn't be that he actually looked dowdy. Oh my no.
Steve Harper ran under that name in an election. If it's good enough to use it himself surely it is good enough for others to use it.

Dowdy is one thing. A reasonable comment. Fat slob, which was the sub-title before the mods changed it, was something all together. Just plain ignorant.

Harper ran under the name Steve 19 years ago. He is a grown adult who changed his mind. What is wrong with respecting that?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Michael Bluth

capricorn · August 23, 2007

Dowdy is one thing. A reasonable comment. Fat slob, which was the sub-title before the mods changed it, was something all together. Just plain ignorant.
Harper ran under the name Steve 19 years ago. He is a grown adult who changed his mind. What is wrong with respecting that?

There are some people who will never respect Prime Minister Harper, regardless of what he does or what he wears. I am not a Liberal supporter. Yet, I respect Mr. Dion. I expect both of them to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. I do not expect perfection.

guyser · August 23, 2007

Fat slob, which was the sub-title before the mods changed it, was something all together. Just plain ignorant.

MB , give it a rest. How can you piously point out ignorance when , in your own words mere weeks ago, you said this .........

Michael Bluth
Beautiful face. Dumptruck arse.

And you want to give others civility lessons? Man up dude.

Harper ran under the name Steve 19 years ago. He is a grown adult who changed his mind. What is wrong with respecting that?

Nobody is disrespecting a thing. Joe Clark was pictured with mittens pinned to his jackets for years, Chretiens lampoons had him with that crooked mouth (medical condition no less) Mulroney and the martini glass , Dief with the flapping jowls.

But god forbid your man Stevey (intended) takes some well placed flak for looking dumpy. He hired a stylist for gods sake and she obviously sucks , or was sent packing so he did have to reveal the cost.

Harper dumped on Manning for clothes issues , and you were fine with that, but now that turnabout is fair play, you want to give us lessons?

Fortunata · August 23, 2007

Dowdy is one thing. A reasonable comment.

Dowdy is my word

Harper ran under the name Steve 19 years ago. He is a grown adult who changed his mind. What is wrong with respecting that?

You mean he flip-flopped?

Michael Bluth · August 23, 2007

Dowdy is my word
You mean he flip-flopped?

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with the word dowdy.

Hmmm, if your definition of a flip-flop is sombody having changed their mind at least once in 20 years than every person on this board must be a flip flopper.

Higgly · August 23, 2007

I am amazed that the Mod - I will not mention any names for fear of hurting his mother Mrs. Anthony - changed the subtitle. Charles, this is a debate forum, not an essay submission. You want to correct term papers, get a job teaching at Dalhousie. 'Nuff said.

As for the rest of you (well, OK, some of the rest of you), this is our Prime Minister, not the IT guy who comes and reloads your computer after you've spilled coffee on the keyboard. This is the world stage.

I stand by my original post. Our Prime Minister is a big fat slob.

Fortunata · August 23, 2007

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with the word dowdy.

Yes but there is something wrong in looking dowdy especially when it is the "new" government leader.

Hmmm, if your definition of a flip-flop is sombody having changed their mind at least once in 20 years than every person on this board must be a flip flopper.

You mean it wasn't just Paul Martin? Fancy that now.

Michael Bluth · August 23, 2007

You mean it wasn't just Paul Martin? Fancy that now.

Martin never made any choices. You can't flip flop in doing so. You can only dither. What did the Economist famously call Paul Martin? That's right. Mr. Dithers. :lol:

jbg · August 23, 2007

I've read umteen threads on SH's wardrobe already. It is not that interesting a topic of discussion.

jbg · August 23, 2007

Did Steve fire the stylist psychick? If not she sure did not earn her money today. He looked positively dowdy next to the others. Plus it looks like he should at least start walking to MacDonalds to burn some of those calories.

What is this supposed to mean?

jdobbin · August 23, 2007

From the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/249031

Tradition has it that prime ministers avoid domestic partisan politics in the international arena, where they speak for all Canadians.
Yet Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the Montebello summit to attack Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion for questioning the agenda of the conference.

Of course, the prime minister had to defend the meeting. U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexico's Felipe Calderon did so as well. But neither took a cheap shot at their political opponents.

Instead of emulating his guests, Harper followed by skewering Dion yet again, this time in French.

Beyond etiquette, Harper failed on substantive issues as well.

There rest of the conference made no concrete proposals at all. And in terms of something of substance, northern sovereignty, Bush rebuffed Harper.

And from the Toronto Sun.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/08...434166-sun.html

So far, Harper distinguished himself at the Cancun summit last year by speaking to the U.S. president in language that Bush pointedly described as "colourful."
Yesterday, Harper wasn't in public more than a minute before being caught with his warm-and-fuzzy showing.

It happened even as the PM was welcoming Bush on the lawn of the chateau, a moment of smiles and handshakes perfectly framed for the prescribed photo op.

But as the two leaders turned from the cameras to begin their summiting behind closed doors, a reporter asked Harper if he had seen the anti-Bush, anti-everything protests outside the gates.

The PM could have said his usual nothing to the media, or maybe something profound like, "it's a free country."

But sometimes Harper just can't seem to help himself.

"I've heard it's nothing," he said. "A couple hundred? It's sad."

Sad indeed. This is a prime minister who evidently pines for the good ol' days, when meetings of world leaders turned the streets into mass-mayhem and violence.Who will ever forget the 2001 summit in Quebec City that turned into the great Canadian tear-gas festival, a kind of Woodstock of hooliganism?

Instead, this week's meeting of Harper, Bush and Calderon caused no riots, attracting mainly law-abiding citizens taking to the streets to exercise their democratic rights to free speech and peaceful demonstration.

Heck, the summit organizers even set aside two hay fields attached to the chateau, specifically so protesters could get close to the action. Pathetic indeed.

Pathetic, indeed, Steve.

Edited August 23, 2007 by jdobbin

Fortunata · August 24, 2007

Steve Harper has shown himself to be very petty and very mean spirited. It is embarrassing.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

Steve Harper has shown himself to be very petty and very mean spirited. It is embarrassing.

So why are you acting in a petty and mean-sprirted manner by continuing to refer to the PM as Steve? Hypocrisy thy name is Fortunata? :lol:

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

Steve Harper has shown himself to be very petty and very mean spirited. It is embarrassing.

When even the Sun and Bush make note of it, it does stand out as fairly petty.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

When even the Sun and Bush make note of it, it does stand out as fairly petty.

What did Bush make note of? The word colourful doesn't mean much with no context provided. Try again dobby. This smear ain't gonna stick.

Fortunata · August 24, 2007

So why are you acting in a petty and mean-sprirted manner by continuing to refer to the PM as Steve? Hypocrisy thy name is Fortunata?

Using the name Steve is not petty nor mean spirited. It's short for "I don't trust this guy and how the hell did he ever get to be PM". Now Steve's actions are mean spirited and petty. Even the press, including Global National, who are usually pro-Steve, have commented on it at various times. Look MB, I know he's your guy and your sun rises and sets with the man, but honestly ... he's just not that great. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

Using the name Steve is not petty nor mean spirited. It's short for "I don't trust this guy and how the hell did he ever get to be PM".

Nope, that's not petty or mean-spirited at all.

Using the name Steve is short for classless, rude and juvenile.

He became PM because a plurality of Canadians felt he was the best choice for PM. But I guess those people are somehow lacking. :rolleyes:

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

MB , give it a rest. How can you piously point out ignorance when , in your own words mere weeks ago, you said this .........
And you want to give others civility lessons? Man up dude.

Nobody is disrespecting a thing. Joe Clark was pictured with mittens pinned to his jackets for years, Chretiens lampoons had him with that crooked mouth (medical condition no less) Mulroney and the martini glass , Dief with the flapping jowls.

But god forbid your man Stevey (intended) takes some well placed flak for looking dumpy. He hired a stylist for gods sake and she obviously sucks , or was sent packing so he did have to reveal the cost.

Harper dumped on Manning for clothes issues , and you were fine with that, but now that turnabout is fair play, you want to give us lessons?

Some people have made fun of Dion carrying his knapsack around or tried to say he looks like a weakling. It goes with the territory. It sometimes digresses to sexist or racist remarks such as we witnessed with the comments you highlighted.

I don't know why some people get upset when they hear Harper referred to as "Steve" when they refer to other posters by names that point out their own lack of civility.

Fortunata · August 24, 2007

What did Bush make note of? The word colourful doesn't mean much with no context provided. Try again dobby. This smear ain't gonna stick.

dobby? dobby? Why would you be so petty and mean-spirited to call him that? Did he invite you to call him that? His mother doesn't want anyone to shorten his name to dobby.

Michael Bluth · August 24, 2007

dobby? dobby? Why would you be so petty and mean-spirited to call him that? Did he invite you to call him that? His mother doesn't want anyone to shorten his name to dobby.

Hey if you agree to respect the wishes of Prime Minister Harper by not referring to him by a name he no longer uses, I'll respect Dobby's wishes if he asks not to be referred to as such. Deal?

Why do I somehow think you won't respect a fair and honest agreement when offered? Please, prove me wrong.

jdobbin · August 24, 2007

dobby? dobby? Why would you be so petty and mean-spirited to call him that? Did he invite you to call him that? His mother doesn't want anyone to shorten his name to dobby.

I think the moderator has warned against doing stuff like that. I quite frankly don't do it and expect that it will stop.