Stephen Harper Greets the Other Amigos Wearing Khakis

[Higgly]

That makes searching for it almost impossible.

Yes, ads are not indexed or stored. You'd have to go to the library and search the fiche.

[Higgly]

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

The mods? I am only aware of one mod. I am still shaking my head over the extent to which the title was changed.

Charles, are you going to let us know what you were thinking on this?

[Michael Bluth]

The mods? I am only aware of one mod. I am still shaking my head over the extent to which the title was changed.

Charles, are you going to let us know what you were thinking on this?

I thought Greg was also a moderator. Maybe I'm wrong.

So Higgly, do you agree you weren't breaking any rules with this quote?

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

What do you think of your guyser's fascination with the Dhalla quote, while contributing nothing else for the thread? What about jdobbin's false accusations of stalking?

Do they get a pass because they share your political views.

[jdobbin]

Its called hypocrisy and you darn well know it

This thread has been about the efficacy of referring to a politician's looks or by calling them by the name that they first ran for in an election under. On the first, it is something I personally don't do. I have made light of how some have dressed. For example, Harper in his cowboy outfit and Duceppe in his plastic hat were totally acceptable for a guffaw. Paul Martin in his fishing jacket and one of those APEC shirts was equally silly looking.

Commenting on someone's paralyzed face or the size of their body parts crosses a line.

As far as calling the prime minister by the first name he used in politics is fair game in my opinion. Once again, I don't say it and never have but I have no problems with others using it.

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

This thread has been about the efficacy of referring to a politician's looks or by calling them by the name that they first ran for in an election under.

That's a convenient way to define the thread, but not quite accurate.

The thread is more broadly about respect. You tried to define the thread to exclude the discussion around your own disrespectful behaviour. Conveniently dishonest.

Why doesn't a false accusation of stalking cross the line?

Commenting on someone's paralyzed face or the size of their body parts crosses a line.

But you are conveniently only referring to Liberal politicians. Does calling Harper a fat slob cross the line? Because your carefully crafted response doesn't point to Higgly's comments doing so.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

Yes, ads are not indexed or stored. You'd have to go to the library and search the fiche.

Luckily, many people quoted the text of what Harper and Day wrote in the Wall Street Journal ad (my mistake earlier in thinking it had been the New York Times).

Hansard and things like the Journal article make it fairly clear that Harper would have taken Canada into Iraq had he been the prime minister.

[Higgly]

I thought Greg was also a moderator. Maybe I'm wrong.

So Higgly, do you agree you weren't breaking any rules with this quote?

Well if I am, I am inviting Charles to tell me what they are. I thought Greg had delegated the whole thing to Charles. Maybe Charles can chime in here too.

[Fortunata]

Higgly, don't call Steve a big fat slob.

He is overweight and under exercised. He has a chef who could prepare him delicious, nutritious, low-cal, low-fat meals. He could have a treadmill in his office so while he is on the phone or reading reports or writing to his ministers to tell them how they must think and run their departments he could be on the treadmill working off some of the bulges. There is absolutely no excuse for the 2nd highest person on our totem pole to be so self-unrespecting as to be in his condition. Maybe he should get rid of his stylist/psychick (who obviously didn't do her job at the summit) and hire a personal trainer instead.

[capricorn]

I know a lot of people who are fat. A couple of them are obese. Some of them have a health problem which causes them to keep the weight on, no matter how little they eat. Thyroid problem as an example.

I also know a lot of people who are thin, some of them exceedingly so and look downright ill. They too may have health issues I am not aware of.

IMO the PM is overweight and could lose a few pounds. Does he have a weight related medical problem? I don't know. I do know he has asthma. Should I be privy to all his medical issues? IMO no, unless he is about to croak, then I would want to know.

When I see someone that I think is a slob, that person

- wears the same clothes for a full week without washing them

- wears wrinkled clothes stained with remnants of their lunch or supper

- stinks like they haven't showered in a week

- eats spaghetti without utensils in public

etc

or a combination of the above.

I'll grant that others here may have a different opinion of what is a slob. I have yet to see anyone offer a description.

Given my definition of a slob, in my opinion, Stephen Harper is not a slob.

In the end, it's a matter of personal (political?) opinion.

[Higgly]

A G-7 leader who looks like Steve did - especially on the closing day - is a big fat slob. In fact he was showing those wrinkles you speak of. The man is an embarrassment. But then look at his friends.

Charles is stonewalling. Not a good sign. Obviously I haven't broken any rules. Time to ramp it up a notch.

[capricorn]

In fact he was showing those wrinkles you speak of.

With or without food stains? That's the qualifier.

[Fortunata]

With or without food stains? That's the qualifier.

I betcha even Steve's smart enough to carry a Tide pen.

No? Oh well.

[capricorn]

I betcha even Steve's smart enough to carry a Tide pen.

No? Oh well.

Good one. :lol:

[Michael Bluth]

A G-7 leader who looks like Steve did - especially on the closing day - is a big fat slob. In fact he was showing those wrinkles you speak of. The man is an embarrassment. But then look at his friends.

Charles is stonewalling. Not a good sign. Obviously I haven't broken any rules. Time to ramp it up a notch.

Perhaps Charles took the weekend off.

Higgly, it seems like you are angling to be banned. Maybe not. Your choice I guess. Let us know what Charles says to you if he gets around to it.

[Guest American Woman]

There is absolutely no excuse for the 2nd highest person on our totem pole to be so self-unrespecting as to be in his condition.

Second highest? Who's the highest?

Edited to add:

Is this where he's supposed to look so overweight and lacking in style? I've been trying to find a picture so I could see what all the fuss is about. Is this it?

Edited August 26, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

Perhaps Charles took the weekend off.

Higgly, it seems like you are angling to be banned. Maybe not. Your choice I guess. Let us know what Charles says to you if he gets around to it.

What can I say? Charles deleted my thread asking why the title of this thread was changed. Still not a word of warning. Maybe he's reluctant to act because I am one of the few who can cite a reference other than canoe.com and canada.com, which, as we all know, are scholarly hystorical documents .

[Guest American Woman]

What can I say? Charles deleted my thread asking why the title of this thread was changed. Still not a word of warning. Maybe he's reluctant to act because I am one of the few who can cite a reference other than canoe.com and canada.com, which, as we all know, are scholarly hystorical documents .

He moved your thread here and he answers your question here.

[old_bold&cold]

I am probably guilty of insulting some leaders, not so much about appearances but for positions they have taken. I have probably done so more to show my distain for a particular position. I do not like when people pick on appearances and I do find them offensive in true political debate. But that is just what I see and my own opinion.

Higgly has broken some rules but has mostly been guilty of bad taste. The corrected title does make for better optics and the rest of the thread content, has allowed for a much wider view of the rules. I wonder if higgly would show up at a pool party wearing a suit? Or maybe a company picnic wearing a tux. Since it is up to the host of such events to set the stage for the type of dress, it then is more telling of those who dresed more formally the Harper, then it was a stain of Harper himself. But that is just plain rules of ettiquete, then anything else.

It is obvious that Higgly is no a fan of Harper or for that matter CP's. We do need opposing arguments in order to have true debate. But when that argument in inlayed with so much venom, that it hurts the debate, then it is just in bad taste completely. I probably have said in anger some things that took me past open thought, and I admit it. But to take such a challenging stand and open retailiation again the boards mods and admins, is just asking for trouble.

Higgly, I do not know you at all and I am really not a great example of how to be, but you seem to be going down a road where you want to confront authority, when you really do not have the right to demand anything more then what the rules have laid out. I think that if you persist you will only get yourself banned. Is it so necessary to be so insulting in the title, that you demand the right to be so? I hope not, as that insult has nothing political about it. It is an appearance issue and that kind of issue is to subjective to be used in a political debate. I hope you can see where I am going with this and hope you understand the meaning of what I have said. I have only done this with the best of intentions.

[Fortunata]

I have probably done so more to show my distain for a particular position.

Physical attributes that we have no control over should be off limits. It is in extreme bad taste to criticize these things (Chretien's face, Layton's face and baldspot). We are not doing that here. This man is a leader; his clothes and appearance is important. His fitness level says, bring on the bacon and his clothes at the summit said Salvation Army. He needs to do better. There is just no excuse.

[M.Dancer]

Physical attributes that we have no control over should be off limits. It is in extreme bad taste to criticize these things (Chretien's face, Layton's face and baldspot). We are not doing that here. This man is a leader; his clothes and appearance is important. His fitness level says, bring on the bacon and his clothes at the summit said Salvation Army. He needs to do better. There is just no excuse.

No. You don't elect a leader because he is fit, but for their brains. If that was the case, GW Bush would be more respected than say, Winson Churchill.

[Fortunata]

No. You don't elect a leader because he is fit, but for their brains.

Or he gets elected because you didn't like the other guy.

I didn't say you elected a leader because of fitness. However it does play into the whole scheme of things and it certainly does once they become leader and you watch him become even more slovenly. Appearance counts, don't kid yourself.