Stephen Harper waging phony jihad on the niqab

[Jinentonix]

I don't think a piece of clothing has gotten this much press since maybe the bikini. When is Harpler going to do something about the potholes?

Ummm, that's not a federal responsibility.

Snow removal equipment?

Neither is that

How about some jobs.

What about 'em? Provinces are equally responsible for attracting jobs.

The front in Syria will help with unemploment perhaps.

Uhhhhhh, no.

Where is the eastern pipeline?

Yeah, because something like that can just be thrown up without any planning or anything.

He's spending time dressing women for **** sake!

Maybe he's playing Polish strip poker.

 

[Locutus]

well said.

 

[JamesBondo]

That pretty much sums it up for me, too.

 

[mentalfloss]

well said.

No more Halloween for the little harperites!

That was the most lol-worthy line of the night.

He got his *** handed to him by Mulcair who told him to attack the oppressor not the woman.

 

[Locutus]

That pretty much sums it up for me, too.

and the majority of Canadians.

 

[Danbones]

everytime the facts trump agenda
ah the joo hater thing
grow up
in politics all religion is special interest anti democracy
""Anti-semitic, its a trick we always use it"
A quote from an ISRAELI CABINET MEMBER

if the url doesn't show google "its a trick we always use it" to see the minister say it straight to you
right from the horses mouth

 

[mentalfloss]

and the majority of Canadians.

Which means nothing.

 

[captain morgan]

Which means nothing.

Check the polls Flossy

 

[mentalfloss]

Check the polls Flossy

Yes, Canadians aren't voting based on the niqab. That's why we're still in a dead heat.

 

[Machjo]

well said.

It appears to me that Harper's logic is that we must prohibit women from doing anything that we do not require them to do. In other words, he must prohibit his daughter from doing anything he does not require her to do, choice not being an option.

I will never tell my daughter that a woman must eat meat. That's not my Canada.

The question then is, must it necessarily follow from this that we should prohibit women from consuming meat? It would seem so according to Harper's logic unless he believes that we should force women to eat meat, choice again not being an option.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, Canadians aren't voting based on the niqab. That's why we're still in a dead heat.

The voting will be (for most) based on a basket of issues. The more that a candidate brings out a hot button issue, the more it will influence the electorate

The real question here for Mulcair and Justine on this issue is; exactly what do women think if the issue.

As it stands, the electioneering and posturing by Trudeau and Mulcair (to a degree) may just cost them partial support of a key demographic

 

[mentalfloss]

It appears to me that Harper's logic is that we must prohibit women from doing anything that we do not require them to do. In other words, he must prohibit his daughter from doing anything he does not require her to do, choice not being an option.

I will never tell my daughter that a woman must eat meat. That's not my Canada.

The question then is, must it necessarily follow from this that we should prohibit women from consuming meat? It would seem so according to Harper's logic unless he believes that we should force women to eat meat, choice again not being an option.

Yes, he's using one required behavior as a sleazy allusion to convince people on something else which should be a choice.

It's conbot logic.

It doesn't have to make sense.

 

[Machjo]

Yes, he's using one required behavior as a sleazy allusion to convince people on something else which should be a choice.

It's conbot logic.

It doesn't have to make sense.

Actually, it's disconcerting. If he prohibits his daughter from doing anything he does not force her to do, to take all freedom of choice away from her is not emotionally healthy and could constitute emotional abuse. Did he just admit to emotionally abusing his daughter on national television? Can we trust a man like that to defend women's basic freedoms?

 

[captain morgan]

Actually, it's disconcerting. If he prohibits his daughter from doing anything he does not force her to do, to take all freedom of choice away from her is not emotionally healthy and could constitute emotional abuse. Did he just admit to emotionally abusing his daughter on national television? Can we trust a man like that to defend women's basic freedoms?

Get over yourself already

 

[mentalfloss]

Actually, it's disconcerting. If he prohibits his daughter from doing anything he does not force her to do, to take all freedom of choice away from her is not emotionally healthy and could constitute emotional abuse. Did he just admit to emotionally abusing his daughter on national television? Can we trust a man like that to defend women's basic freedoms?

To be honest I think Daddy Harper wanted us all to feel like we're his daughter when he said: 'My Canada'

Canada belongs to him you see.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It appears to me that Harper's logic is that we must prohibit women from doing anything that we do not require them to do. In other words, he must prohibit his daughter from doing anything he does not require her to do, choice not being an option.

I will never tell my daughter that a woman must eat meat. That's not my Canada.

The question then is, must it necessarily follow from this that we should prohibit women from consuming meat? It would seem so according to Harper's logic unless he believes that we should force women to eat meat, choice again not being an option.

Sorry, totally wrong.

Stating that you will not require something is completely different from saying you will prohibit it.

The difference is called freedom. Usually well-thought-of in Western societies.

 

[captain morgan]

To be honest I think Daddy Harper wanted us all to feel like we're his daughter

You feeling a little out of sorts Flossy?

Try one of these, surely it will help ya

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

To be honest I think Daddy Harper wanted us all to feel like we're his daughter when he said: 'My Canada'

Canada belongs to him you see.

You sound more like Walter every day.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, totally wrong.

Stating that you will not require something is completely different from saying you will prohibit it.

The difference is called freedom. Usually well-thought-of in Western societies.

But it's clear from the context of his comment that his intent was that we should prohibit all women from doing anything he does not require his daughter to do.

 

[captain morgan]

You have twisted those words to suit your specific ends.... There was nothing in his comment that came remotely close to your interpretation