[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Let me check Harper's Afghan exit strategy and I'll get back to you on that..

There fixed that for you.

Given that's he in charge now (time to take responsbility and all that) and that he renewed the mission to 2011, I'd say it's as much his deal as it is Chretien's. Harper should be thanking the Lord he wasn't running the government back when Dubya decided to get rid of Saddam, or he'd have two wars to deal with.

[ridenrain]

STill, the ONLY vote parliament has had on this topic.
All your spin can't change that.

[kenmore]

What an Embarrassment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9dvEeMVOwU

[kenmore]

Harper actions tell us what he really thinks about climate change: "Stephen Harper skipped most of the proceedings, attending only a leader's dinner last night, saying Canada will march alongside U.S. policy." (Campbell Clark, Globe and Mail, September 23, 2009) And this is what you people defend? Mon Dieu!

[Akhenaten]

Neither you nor that video list the world leaders who are addessing the UN and those who aren't.

Gordon Brown isn't. Should the UK be embarrassed? Do you know who Herman Van Rompuy is? No reason you should, he's the PM of Belgium, and he's not addressing the UN eitehr. Should Belgium be embarrassed? Of course not. There's a huge list of world leaders who are not addressing the UN and this is just more making a mountain out of a molehill by the Liberals.

$1:

And this is what you people defend?

Not defending simply calling for rationality. It's not that we're defending him because we're all 'partisan' its that you're trying to make this into an issue you don't even understand yourself (you don't apparently know who's speaking and who isn't to make a comparrison) in order to make partisan attacks.

[EyeBrock]

This is all a load of partisan bollocks and very boring.

[kenmore]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Neither you nor that video list the world leaders who are addessing the UN and those who aren't.

Gordon Brown isn't. Should the UK be embarrassed? Do you know who Herman Van Rompuy is? No reason you should, he's the PM of Belgium, and he's not addressing the UN eitehr. Should Belgium be embarrassed? Of course not. There's a huge list of world leaders who are not addressing the UN and this is just more making a mountain out of a molehill by the Liberals.

$1:

And this is what you people defend?

Not defending simply calling for rationality. It's not that we're defending him because we're all 'partisan' its that you're trying to make this into an issue you don't even understand yourself (you don't apparently know who's speaking and who isn't to make a comparrison) in order to make partisan attacks.

Yes I know who M. Van Rompuy is... and I am not concerned about who did or did not address the UN.. I am concerned about this country and its PM.. Harper will be hosting the summit next year.. will he go to the can then? I do have a TV and I do have internet. I know the issue and I know who is speaking. Do you think you are an expert on the subject? You sir are defending this government for partisan reasons and only partisan reasons. If it was not a concern to Canadians, these articles and videos would not be posted or in the press... Harper has proven enept time and time again on the world stage and an embarrassment to both his party and the country... stop defending his ineptness and stop suggesting you are the only one who knows what is going on in the world.. you may know some but not all... no one does

[Akhenaten]

Kenmore Kenmore:

Yes I know who M. Van Rompuy is...

Phffft. No you didn't.

kenmore kenmore:

and I am not concerned about who did or did not address the UN.. I am concerned about this country and its PM..

Right. You're not concerned in the least if this is actually an issue or not, whether it's unusual or not, you're just willing to sink your teeth into any non-issue out there and make a mountain out of a molehill in order to facilitate a partisan attack on Harper.

Thank you for admitting it.

[gigs]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Let me check Harper's Afghan exit strategy and I'll get back to you on that..

There fixed that for you.

Given that's he in charge now (time to take responsbility and all that) and that he renewed the mission to 2011, I'd say it's as much his deal as it is Chretien's. Harper should be thanking the Lord he wasn't running the government back when Dubya decided to get rid of Saddam, or he'd have two wars to deal with.

Good thing Iggy's not in charge now or then , we would be in the same boat.

[herbie]

Whatever the President said, yuh, yuh.
180 degrees from the last President? Doesn't matter.
Whatever the President says. Yuh, yuh. We support it.
Whoops, I knocked over the mike wagging my tail.
Whutever he says yuh, yuh!


That would be embarrassing.

[bootlegga]

gigs gigs:

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Let me check Harper's Afghan exit strategy and I'll get back to you on that..

There fixed that for you.

Given that's he in charge now (time to take responsbility and all that) and that he renewed the mission to 2011, I'd say it's as much his deal as it is Chretien's. Harper should be thanking the Lord he wasn't running the government back when Dubya decided to get rid of Saddam, or he'd have two wars to deal with.

Good thing Iggy's not in charge now or then , we would be in the same boat.

Totally true.

Too bad for you he isn't. Then you'd have more "ammunition" for your anti-Liberal hatred. The big difference between the two is that one was an elected representative in Parliament and the other was an egghead at a university when they made those statements.

Funny how Harper didn't have the balls to send Canadians to die in Iraq when he got in office. One of only two of his flip flops that I actually agree with (the other being income trusts).

Too bad he was too much of a power-mad politician not to flip flop on everything else.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Funny how Harper didn't have the balls to send Canadians to die in Iraq when he got in office.One of only two of his flip flops that I actually agree with (the other being income trusts).

Before the election Harper clearly stated that if elected he would not send troops to Iraq. No flip flop. I also find it interesting that you have him cornered in a "damned if he did and damned if he didn't" position. I thought you were less partisan than that. My mistake?

[gigs]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Too bad for you he isn't. Then you'd have more "ammunition" for your anti-Liberal hatred. The big difference between the two is that one was an elected representative in Parliament and the other was an egghead at a university when they made those statements.

Funny how Harper didn't have the balls to send Canadians to die in Iraq when he got in office. One of only two of his flip flops that I actually agree with (the other being income trusts).

Too bad he was too much of a power-mad politician not to flip flop on everything else.

Good thing for all of us he isn't or ever will be.

You think every statement or opinion someone has before they become elected to office should be discounted as irrelevant?

Shit the CBC and you Harper bashers wouldn't have a bloody thing to talk about.

[bootlegga]

He isn't!

He's flopped on just about everything he supposedly stood for;

Floor crossers - Check!
Senate appointment - Check!
Coalition government - Check!

The list goes on and on...

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/canadian-politics-f17/thread-for-compilation-of-conservative-scandals-and-misdeeds-t63234.html?hilit=conservative%20scandals

Fuck he's flipped flopped so much I'm beginning to think he really is a shark and doesn't have a single bone in his body.

[Akhenaten]

I see. So you admit then that 'not sending troops to Iraq' wasn't a flip flop on his part? You're abandoning that statement in favour of an entirely new one?


I thought so.