What Stephen Harper thinks of NDP Supporters

[daleo]

"...the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men."

"Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But, these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology."

Page A9, Jan 21, 2006 Globe and Mail.

[Hoping4Change]

1. I don't think I' ever forgive the NDP for giving Harper a pass.

:grr:

[V. Kid]

2. I don't think you were ever supporting them, ever.

[Hoping4Change]

3. Hello. I grew up in an NDP household with a father who

was a union rep in the CNR in the 50's and 60's active with worker education. I have a framed Tommy Douglas signature which I got when I met him as a kid so don't even presume to know my leanings. It is clear from the article that prominent NDPs who also are dismayed with the decision to lay off Harper.

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. Calling him a "liar"?

I've voted NDP before. Will you call me a liar next?

The way the NDP has run this campaign will not be something I will forget for a long time. I will actively work to remind people of it during the next election.

[Harper_is_Bush]

4. Me either. Or for the disengenuous BS income trust allegation.

NDP is dead to me.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. huh?

I'm being crystal clear in everything I post. Can you please give me the same consideration?

thx.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Maybe you could be specific?

I'm not chasing your links around trying to put the pieces of your brain together.

Stop acting like Jack Layton. Come out and say whatever it is you are thinking.

[iverglas]

10. stop pretending

It just looks silly.

Stop pretending that you've been here all day and haven't read my posts in that thread.

I don't care how silly you want to make yourself look. I'll copy 'em for you. I'll add emphases so you can't pretend not to know what it's all about.

Harper_is_Bush
Sun Jan-08-06 08:03 PM

Something I wrote regarding all this talk of "Liberal corruption"...

The opposition parties never use the word “liberal” anymore without prefixing it with the word “corruption”, and the media let’s them get away with it.

Would not the obvious and objective question from the media be:
“Ok, what corruption are you talking about in relation to your Liberal opponents, specifically?”


iverglas
Sat Jan-21-06 07:45 PM

3. I'd managed to miss this one

... Well lookee there.

"YOUR LIBERAL OPPONENTS". Date: January 8.

Now, let's look at the famous question to Jack Layton from the wide-eyed innocent in the audience on Your Turn:

"... Given these facts, how do you justify the constant repetition of the word "corruption" in reference to your Liberal opponents, and do you feel that false accusations like that harm our democratic process?"

Huh.

"YOUR LIBERAL OPPONENTS". Date: January 17.

Great minds, eh? What an interesting turn of phrase they did come up with all independent-like.

Interesting and INTENTIONALLY AMBIGUOUS, that is, of course.

I went on to say that I guessed I'd been right when I'd said, on January 20:

But if you are going to tell me that "his Liberal opponents" means PAUL MARTIN or any other particular individual you might want somebody to think it means, then I'm going to ask you why you (and the plant in the CBC audience, and anybody else who might be saying or wanting to say it) doesn't just SAY "PAUL MARTIN".

THE PLANT. The Liberal Party shill.

And then I wondered whether this was a Liberal Party talking point you were parroting ... or you'd just outed yourself.

So: talked to Sean Ledmarsh lately? Looking in a mirror when you did it? Maybe he just read your "something I wrote" and took it to heart. Maybe you just both get the same emails. Any ideas?

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. Let me explain for you.

Often I read just the first couple of lines from your posts, get totally turned off, and move on.

Right here right now is a perfect example.

I read this:

It just looks silly.
Stop pretending that you've been here all day and haven't read my posts in that thread.
I don't care how silly you want to make yourself look. I'll copy 'em for you. I'll add emphases so you can't pretend not to know what it's all about.

And that was where I left it.

In answer to what I did read:
No, I haven't been here all day. Been on the road, mostly. Just showed up about 1/2 hour ago.
No, I haven't read your posts in that thread.

Why should I? Is there a point to it all? Let me guess.....Jack Layton isn't referring to any specific Liberals that are running in this election when he uses the term "corruption"?

[iverglas]

13. that's okay

I'm sure everybody else read it.

I'm sure everybody else is perfectly aware that you have declined to answer the questions:

- are you Sean Ledmarsh, the Liberal shill who asked Jack Layton the question that got the answer you're pretending to be so peeved about, which was to all intents and purposes identical to the question you posted here several days earlier and claimed to have written yourself?

- do you and Sean Ledmarsh just get the same talking points from the Liberal Party and then go forth and spout them wherever you think someone might be deceived by them and claim to have come up with them yourselves?

Anytime you like.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. Now you're being specific.

No, I'm not Sean Ledmarsh.

See how easy it is when you ask a question?

And no, I don't work for the Liberal party. My ideas and my opinions are my own. Do you work for the NDP? :eyes:

Any other conspiracy theories you want to vet?

[iverglas]

14. Is it time yet?

Time for you to answer the questions yet?

Evading questions is just such an awful thing to do, isn't it?

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. Let me buy you a clue

See above? First time you asked a question. The rest was dribble. No offense.

See above? Answered as soon as I saw it.

You seem very, very, very angry. Is Jack Layton related to you or something? Should I stop critisizing the little sellout for your sake?

[Roho]

17. you need to buy a clue

A conservative minority and a liberal collapse is GOOD for the NDP.

Who did Layton "sell out"?

Liberals?

I happen to be friends with the Layton/Chow family and can assure you harder working, committed, social democrats you would be hard pressed to find.

Just because you lack the political savvy to understand we actually have an independent judiciary that would provide a check to any extreme unconstitutional Tory policies in a majority government doesn't mean you are even remotely correct when you label Jack, and the NDP, sellouts because they know the most likely result is a tory minority which in fact would be the best result for progressive Canadians.

I'll leave it to you to try and figure out why.

[Harper_is_Bush]

18. Liberal collapse?

Most organizations and folks around here were predicting 60 odd Liberal seats.

It's a very good Liberal result considering the total and sustained gang up on them.

[Telly Savalas]

12. And virtually all potential NDP voters dislike Harper.

Which is why they should have dedicated all of their resources towards telling this group of potential voters things they already know.