Has Harper got the "balls"?

[Omicron]

Or he like most politicians, could be in it for the glory.

Huh? Who in their right mind would get into Canadian politics for "the glory of it"? The only thing the public here does is look for ways to tear politicians down and shred them.

No, ideologies that cause people to give up rational thought and use terms like "Dark side".

:roll: Oh brother... so you're saying that if a person uses metaphors (in this case, using the term "dark-side" to refer to actions and statements motivated by that hateful, vindictive aspect of human nature which is a hangover from the nastier aspects of human evolution, and which comes to dominate in some individuals), then that's giving up "rational thought"?

Since when has the use of metaphor been equated to being irrational?

Metaphors can *be* rational or irrational... they're not a *replacement* for the *process* of being rational or irrational.

Viewing history with a contemporary eye, is a guaranteed way to misunderstand what you're viewing.

Oh really. Ergo don't bother learning history, because you're not going to learn anything about the present by studying the past? :rabbit:

And please forgo explaining Native Treaties and sovereignty to me. I've argued them for years.

For or against the natives?

I'm more then just merely acquainted with a great many of them. Same goes for the R.C.M.P. and Canadian history in general.

Well, that's good to know. It means instead of explaining that stuff, I can just site it.

Why? You'd only post the same opinion. Wherein you justify, even in its own time, would be illegal and unacceptable practice.

*Sigh*... Okay, I should have said, "Would you like to *rephrase* that question?".

Interesting. I would tend to agree.

Because I'm right.

Oh really... then that means if I disagree with you, then you're wrong.

[...] you'll notice that people tend not to respond to posts you've made with that emoticon.

Am I supposed to care about that?

If you don't want people to read what you've written, then of course not!

When you get to know me better, you'll know how to take it.

Yeah, well, that's like a cobra who thinks it's being funny to rear and hiss saying that once people get to know it, they'll learn that he doesn't really mean anything by it.

On the backs of blue collar workers, through excessive EI payments.

You're talking like one of those people who likes to use little soundbite-snippets of sub-facts to scare those people who can't comprehend thoughts requiring sentences longer than five words to express.

Martin did what a responsible insurance manager would do, which is set the premium rates so they could cover the cost of payout...

And because EI is a standalone insurance fund, it has *nothing* to do with the things he did to the actual budget itself to enable the surpluses and which Herpies gutted... which is what we were talking about.

Yep, misguided and stupid. Are you confusing my questioning of your view as a defence for Harpo's actions?

Actually, I was, yeah.

Don't, I'm not.

Okay. Good to know.

Trudeau? Paul Martin?

Not even remotely. Which is supported by a list of Liberal crimes, unethical behavior and bungling that has exceeded 230 separate acts.

I just threw those out to see if you'd come back with some hard examples. I never thought you'd be advocates for either. In fact, I *presumed* you'd have issues with both, and that's what was supposed to get you to give some real examples.

So... who *are* some examples of people whom you think would have the qualities and attributes of a good PM?

You think Harper's charismatic?

Not even remotely.

But in an earlier post, when I was trying to get you to give an example of who would be a good PM, you said: "...on the outside he'd be as charismatic as Harpo"

Hmmm, that's right up there with the "dark side".

Huh? What in the world does wondering if a person is motivated by the bad side (aka "dark-side") of their human nature have to do with observing that they look like a cross-dresser out of drag? The first is wondering what motivates a person, and second is just a statement of observation.

Funny how perceptions give people differing views eh.

I think you mean to say, "Funny how people with different views can observe the same thing, resulting in different perceptions".

Of course, which is caused by the fact that the electorate have become so politically un-savy, uneducated, uninformed and swayed by ideologies.

Yeah, that sucks, doesn't it.

Yes it does, and it's hard to watch too.

Well, at least you care.

So... what do you think is the *cause* of all that political un-savyness, un-educatedness, un-informadness, and idiological swayability?

 

[CDNBear]

Huh? Who in their right mind would get into Canadian politics for "the glory of it"? The only thing the public here does is look for ways to tear politicians down and shred them.

That doesn't seem to sway the heads of large corporations and law firms.

:roll: Oh brother... so you're saying that if a person uses metaphors (in this case, using the term "dark-side" to refer to actions and statements motivated by that hateful, vindictive aspect of human nature which is a hangover from the nastier aspects of human evolution, and which comes to dominate in some individuals), then that's giving up "rational thought"?

Yes.

Since when has the use of metaphor been equated to being irrational?

Whenever it's irrational.

Metaphors can *be* rational or irrational... they're not a *replacement* for the *process* of being rational or irrational.

True. Which of course negates some of your previous thoughts in this post.

Oh really. Ergo don't bother learning history, because you're not going to learn anything about the present by studying the past? :rabbit:

Wow! You gleaned that from my comment? Interesting.

For or against the natives?

Does it matter?

Well, that's good to know. It means instead of explaining that stuff, I can just site it.

Make sure you cite fact, not how someone perceives it.

*Sigh*... Okay, I should have said, "Would you like to *rephrase* that question?".

You could have, but my answer would have had the same context.

Oh really... then that means if I disagree with you, then you're wrong.

Nope, it likely means I'm still right, but you disagree.

If you don't want people to read what you've written, then of course not!

You don't read smileys.

Yeah, well, that's like a cobra who thinks it's being funny to rear and hiss saying that once people get to know it, they'll learn that he doesn't really mean anything by it.

That would be true if my intent was benign.
I wonder how long it took early man to figure out what the rearing and hissing was all about.

You're talking like one of those people who likes to use little soundbite-snippets of sub-facts to scare those people who can't comprehend thoughts requiring sentences longer than five words to express.

No, I'm just used to talking to people like that about politics.

Martin did what a responsible insurance manager would do, which is set the premium rates so they could cover the cost of payout...

And because EI is a standalone insurance fund, it has *nothing* to do with the things he did to the actual budget itself to enable the surpluses and which Herpies gutted... which is what we were talking about.

No, that's what you're talking about. I'm talking about who actually paid for it.

I just threw those out to see if you'd come back with some hard examples. I never thought you'd be advocates for either. In fact, I *presumed* you'd have issues with both, and that's what was supposed to get you to give some real examples.

Why? You'd only disagree with my perception of their actions and affects on Canada.

So... who *are* some examples of people whom you think would have the qualities and attributes of a good PM?

Like I explained before, I haven't seen anything, in any person in the political sphere, that meets my high standards. But you'll be the first to know when I do.

But in an earlier post, when I was trying to get you to give an example of who would be a good PM, you said: "...on the outside he'd be as charismatic as Harpo"

That's right I did, and I stand by that statement.

Huh? What in the world does wondering if a person is motivated by the bad side (aka "dark-side") of their human nature have to do with observing that they look like a cross-dresser out of drag?

It shows the extent of ones ideological bias, and how that plays upon their rational thought, or lack their of.

The first is wondering what motivates a person, and second is just a statement of observation.

Expressed in a way that is demeaning and childish, thus exposing the lack of rational thought that oft follows maturity.

I think you mean to say, "Funny how people with different views can observe the same thing, resulting in different perceptions".

You think wrong.

Well, at least you care.

Of course, mine and my children' lives, depend on it.

So... what do you think is the *cause* of all that political un-savyness, un-educatedness, un-informadness, and idiological swayability?

Apathy.

 

[Omicron]

That doesn't seem to sway the heads of large
Does it matter?

Yeah.

If you'd expressed sentiment as a function of your feelings then all of your statements could have been taken as fact.

What we see here now is a brat who can only jerk off by taking lots of money...

In a Hebrew context...

 

[L Gilbert]

Topic?
Harper's got solid balls. The problem is what he applies them to. The same problem Martin had.

 

[CDNBear]

Yeah.

If you'd expressed sentiment as a function of your feelings then all of your statements could have been taken as fact.

What we see here now is a brat who can only jerk off by taking lots of money...

In a Hebrew context...

 

[Omicron]

See... you're doing it again.. acting like a Montreal Jew.

The next thing you're going to ask is: "Why shouldn't I?"

You're so boobish that you wouldn't know how to step outside your way of making money to retire in a nice part of the dominion until you're old enough and have saved up enough to do what you want, which will be to fly to jurisdictions where it's legal to diddle little pre-pubescent girls, and you're going to get kicked out if anyone ever figures out what your selfishness is about.

 

[CDNBear]

See... you're doing it again.. acting like a Montreal Jew.

The next thing you're going to ask is: "Why shouldn't I?"

You're so boobish that you wouldn't know how to step outside your way of making money to retire in a nice part of the dominion until you're old enough and have saved up enough to do what you want, which will be to fly to jurisdictions where it's legal to diddle little pre-pubescent girls, and you're going to get kicked out if anyone ever figures out what your selfishness is about.

I must commend you on giving me a glimpse of who and what you really are. I knew eventually you would.

 

[Omicron]

I must commend you on giving me a glimpse of who and what you really are. I knew eventually you would.

*Sigh*... :roll:

First you say, "I must commend you on giving me a glimpse of who and what you really are", as if it's an achievement for anybody to show another "who and what they are".

That's ridiculous, because as anyone with an IQ above room-temperature knows, it's much more of an achievement to propagate to others a "glimpse" of who one is *not*.

Then you say, "I knew eventually you would."

Well, if you *knew* I would, then it's no "achievement", is it?

Now, back to the original focus of this thread, which is Harper, and whether he would "have the balls" to reinstate Helena Guergis...

Given how Harper's modus-operandi is to force the fed to operate in an Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind mode so he can Rule instead of just Govern, his default position will be to say nothing about it and wait for the public to forget about it (a problem with the public-mind that some sociologist-acquaintances tell me kicked in some time in the 80's, prior to which refusal by a government official to respond to a question would be interpreted severely in the negative).

However, as another poster noted, even if somehow the media were able to force him to say something about Guergis, he still has the fall-back position that her husband is not yet proven blameless, which means Harper still has the option of holding her to account for the behavior of her hubby, because that will work in the minds of his core Reform Party constituents, who have been raised to believe couples are sewn together like Siamese twins.