Stephen Harper Greets the Other Amigos Wearing Khakis

[Michael Bluth]

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

Are you taking offence to Dobby? or to Steve?

Both?

Edited August 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[guyser]

Hypocrisy thy name is Fortunata?

What...did you sell your title to him?

You have got to be kidding me, giving lessons on "Stevie" and how we are to address him, but calling a Lib MP a dumptruck arse is cool.

The only true ignorance being displayed here is your refusal to own up to an A-one classic case of hypocrisy. You keep posting on this very thread and calling others that which you are yourself.

Man up dude. Or turn in that card.

[jdobbin]

You have got to be kidding me, giving lessons on "Stevie" and how we are to address him, but calling a Lib MP a dumptruck arse is cool.

I don't think all Conservatives are sexist and lack civility. We see some here who respond without the use of namecalling or icons. I appreciate those posts.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't think all Conservatives are sexist and lack civility. We see some here who respond without the use of namecalling or icons. I appreciate those posts.

What was the name calling?

Icons ... well that's a matter of choice on the board.

[guyser]

Michael Bluth, are you ready to acknowledge this yet? Need more time?

[Michael Bluth]

Hmmm, seems like there is a poster on this thread whose only contribution is to try and push something from another thread that the mods dealt with weeks ago.

dobbin what were those false accusations you made repeatedly until you were spoken to by the mods for your behaviour?

Rhymed with walking IIRC

[Higgly]

Michael Bluth, cool cat. I love it. Michael, cool is something you are called, not a label you apply to yourself. But you are right about one thing. I do call him Steve because I do not respect him. At all. Cast your mind back to that full page ad in the New York times supporting the invasion of Iraq. It's been all downhill from there.

[Michael Bluth]

Michael Bluth, cool cat. I love it. Michael, cool is something you are called, not a label you apply to yourself. But you are right about one thing. I do call him Steve because I do not respect him. At all. Cast your mind back to that full page ad in the New York times supporting the invasion of Iraq. It's been all downhill from there.

Yeah the cool cat thing is a joke with some friends back in the day.

I honestly can't remember the full page ad in the Times, not doubting its existence just can't remember.

I wasn't a supporter of the Alliance. So I was naturally concerned when Harper became leader of the CPC.

I doubted him up till the second week of the election. The first couple days appeared to be a disaster for the party, but he had a plan, stuck to it and it worked.

I don't agree with all the scary scary scary talk. Sure Harper said some things that were a cause for concern before leading the CPC. But I have judged him on his recent record and believe he has been a very good leader of the CPC and done an admirable job as PM.

[jdobbin]

I do call him Steve because I do not respect him. At all. Cast your mind back to that full page ad in the New York times supporting the invasion of Iraq. It's been all downhill from there.

Harper has been running from that newspaper ad for some time. One can imagine where Canada would be if he had been prime minister then: smack dab in the heart of Iraq.

[M.Dancer]

Harper has been running from that newspaper ad for some time. One can imagine where Canada would be if he had been prime minister then: smack dab in the heart of Iraq.

Okay, I'll bite.

What ad?

[guyser]

Hmmm, seems like there is a poster on this thread whose only contribution is to try and push something from another thread that the mods dealt with weeks ago.

Yes the mods dealt with it.

But you want to hang ignorance on people for calling him stevie and yet dumptruck arse is cool.

Show me where you apologized and its dropped.

Your call for the man card.

[jdobbin]

Okay, I'll bite.

What ad?

In the run up to the Iraq War, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper said Canada should be with the U.S. in Iraq. The wrote a New York Times article to that effect.

In Hansard, just in case there is any doubt.

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

- Stepehen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

In the run up to the Iraq War, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper said Canada should be with the U.S. in Iraq. The wrote a New York Times article to that effect.

In Hansard, just in case there is any doubt.

- Stepehen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

Sorry, was it an ad or an editorial?

[jdobbin]

Sorry, was it an ad or an editorial?

They paid for it. It wasn't solicited by the New York Times.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

In the run up to the Iraq War, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper said Canada should be with the U.S. in Iraq. The wrote a New York Times article to that effect.

In Hansard, just in case there is any doubt.

- Stepehen Harper indicating that, if elected, Canada will join the US occupation of Iraq, Hansard, January 29th 2003.

"This party will not take its position based on public opinion polls. We will not take a stand based on focus groups. We will not take a stand based on phone-in shows or householder surveys or any other vagaries of pubic opinion... In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade."

I remember that hollow rhetoric, I remember thinking, given all those things he says about the state of the forces (at the time) were true, he would be a maniac to follow through.

[M.Dancer]

The paid for it. It wasn't solicited by the New York Times.

That makes searching for it almost impossible.

I'm not doubting the veracity....nor am I doubting they are running from it. Only a insane goof would stand beside that now in hindsight.....

...I would love to see it though

[M.Dancer]

Searching ....seems it may have been a letter to the editor......which is searcable as opposed to ads.....Do you know how mauch a full page in the NYT costs? You can buy a new home in Kelowna for that....

Canadians Stand With You

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.

Yesah my advice to themr is run as fast as you can......

[jdobbin]

That makes searching for it almost impossible.

I'm not doubting the veracity....nor am I doubting they are running from it. Only a insane goof would stand beside that now in hindsight.....

...I would love to see it though

It is my mistake. They wrote it in the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879589/posts

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

[jdobbin]

Show me where you apologized and its dropped.

Your call for the man card.

I don't know that there will ever be an apology for that sexist remark. We saw Kinsella own up to his bad decision.

It just points out the hypocrisy of some people.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't know that there will ever be an apology for that sexist remark. We saw Kinsella own up to his bad decision.

It just points out the hypocrisy of some people.

Nope. The moderator spoke to me and the issue was dropped.

Just like the moderator spoke to you about the repeated false accusations of stalking.

Is this the hypocrisy your talking about?

I'll make you a deal dobbin. You apologize for the accusations of stalking and I'll apologize for the Dhalla comment?

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

I have ignored guyser because Charles A asked me to ignore posters who are simply here trolling. I have no qualms with following the recommendations of the mods.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[margrace]

I don't know that there will ever be an apology for that sexist remark. We saw Kinsella own up to his bad decision.

It just points out the hypocrisy of some people.

Yes people who would love to take away our freedoms, people who would love to control the great unwashed. You can identify them when they start using words like communist and hippy when answering posts.

Edited August 24, 2007 by margrace

[guyser]

I have ignored guyser because Charles A asked me to ignore posters who are simply here trolling. I have no qualms with following the recommendations of the mods.

That would not be me then, since I do not troll.

You are avoiding me because you simply are embarassed at being caught calling someone ignorant for using sexists remarks that you in fact used (actually worse)

Its called hypocrisy and you darn well know it

Edited August 24, 2007 by guyser

[jdobbin]

Yes people who would love to take away our freedoms, people who would love to control the great unwashed. You can identify them when they start using words like communist and hippy when answering posts.

Or by making sexist remarks. I know.

[Michael Bluth]

Yes people who would love to take away our freedoms, people who would love to control the great unwashed. You can identify them when they start using words like communist and hippy when answering posts.

What freedoms are being taken away? The freedom to call Stephen Harper a fat slob? The freedom to repeat what staffers on the Hill say about Ruby Dhalla?

I didn't have the freedom to say that, the moderators stepped in and I stopped.

The mods changed this thread title. Yet Higgly ignored it and repeated the offensive line.

guyser has posted seven times on this thread in an attempt to bully me. Nothing else on this thread. Not contributing anything else. Pure trolling plain and simple.

The mods stepped in and stopped that sort of behaviour from jdobbin.

When they have time higgly and guyser will be dealt with I'm sure.

[Michael Bluth]

Or by making sexist remarks. I know.

Or by accusing people of stalking. I know. Oh that's right you do to because the mods spoke to you about those accusations.

Bravo to dobbin, guyser and margrace. The PM is called a fat pig. Not one of you took higgly to task over it.

Guess respect for all people ends at the Paul Martin wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.