As I said, I don't read much of what he posts now but that's why I quit reading his nonsense. I see our new mod is doing her best to make herself silly. Commenting about me derailing threads when the other mod brings up ankle socks at every opportunity. They clearly don't get how silly they are.
Women Use #DressCodePM To Ridicule Prime Minister's Anti-Niqab Comments
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
As I said, I don't read much of what he posts now but that's why I quit reading his nonsense. I see our new mod is doing her best to make herself silly. Commenting about me derailing threads when the other mod brings up ankle socks at every opportunity. They clearly don't get how silly they are.
Stop being so silly. If they were "confirmable", given the amount of time you commit to me, you would have been able to confirm them by now.
Same here.
I just put him on ignore because there is always someone else to reply to.
Ever since then he's been following me around and doling out reddies like an extremely vengeful mad person.
I would never want to invade your special niche in that way.
He says in yet another attempt to derail the thread.
In all seriousness though people are getting sick and tired of it. Are you the only one who does it? Nope, but since they only one you should be concerned about is you and not anyone else, why not try a little self-control?
Unless of course your position is that your unable to exercise a little restraint, that you fail miserably when it comes to actual adult conversation, that the word "silly" truly is in your top ten favourite words of all time. Because that last piece is beginning to make sense given how you behave the biggest majority of the time.
So you can not provide a reply to someone else instead of to him?
You can try to make this about me as much as you want to, I'm not buying it and I highly doubt anyone else will either. This is about you and you alone.
Want to go on and on and on and on about tax credits and/or Saskatchewan Highway Traffic Act? Great, fantastic, start a thread on it and go to town. I have no problem with that. Keep inserting it into any damn thread you choose, and often multiple threads at that, and I will.
And at this point, I'm still asking. Next step will be moving and possibly deleting. And that, let me assure you, will get old really fast.
Are we on the same page now?
My point was that I don't mind missing what he says because there is always someone else to reply to.
Obviously.
And my point was your use of the term "reply" is rather subjective. You posited a question to me earlier, I did you the courtesy of answering but did not receive the same courtesy in return. (I still have no idea what you meant by "savages") In fact, you were rather dismissive.
Which is fine, your choice in how you choose to behave towards people. But you do often seem to wonder out loud why everyone is so combative towards you.
The far-left architect of #dresscodePM doubles down on the retarded. #cdnpoli #roft
https://twitter.com/FACLC/status/577465818188910592
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/mr-harper-you-may-have-missed-your-calling
https://twitter.com/FACLC/status/577465818188910592
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/columnists/mr-harper-you-may-have-missed-your-calling
Stephen Harper’s niqab comments spark Tory consternation
After the prime minister said the niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-women,” confusion ensued within government ranks.
MONTREAL — Prime Minister Stephen Harper took his own troops by surprise when he ratcheted up his anti-niqab rhetoric in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
If the anecdotal evidence gathered over the course of subsequent conversations with members of the government — including some pretty senior ones — is any indication, it was not a pleasant surprise for all Conservatives.
In response to a question from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Harper lashed out at critics of the government’s decision to appeal a court ruling that struck down the ban on wearing the face-covering niqab during a citizenship oath.
He accused them of embracing a piece of clothing whose existence is rooted in a culture hostile to women. Some Conservative MPs would have liked the prime minister to expand on that thesis, if only to make it clear that he was not talking about the entire Muslim faith. Others would have preferred that Harper steer clear of leading the government further unto the minefield of cultural accommodation.
What ensued was unusual confusion within government ranks. In the apparent absence of coherent talking points to explain Harper’s comments, at least one senior minister decided that retreating from the media front line was the better part of valour.
Others improvised as best they could — with decidedly mixed results. International Development Minister Christian Paradis opined that the citizenship oath niqab ban was only necessary for identification purposes. That’s also what GTA MP Costas Menegakis — the parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration — told The Canadian Press.
In fact, women who wear the niqab do take off their face-covering veil for the purpose of identification at citizenship ceremonies. They put it back on to take the oath.
Identification — as the Federal Court ruling that struck down the ban noted — is not at issue in this matter.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement defended the ban in the case of the citizenship oath but went on to say that wearing a niqab to work — including in the federal public service — was acceptable.
Few took up Harper’s “anti-women” thesis.
Still, by the time a large section of the Parliament Hill community convened for the annual Politics and the Pen dinner on Wednesday, the niqab had become fodder for the water-cooler conversations of the country — to the visible chagrin of more than a few Conservatives.
Many of them are disconcerted by the prime minister’s resolve to shift a debate on national security onto the shifting sands of the accommodation of certain minorities.
The first issue — pertaining to anti-terrorism — plays to a perceived strength of the ruling Conservatives. The other — relating to minority rights — is at the best of times uncertain terrain for any politician.
It was on a pit stop in Quebec last month that the prime minister jumped in front of the niqab parade by announcing the government’s appeal of the court decision to strike down the ban.
The political rationale behind that was that it could pave the way to Conservative gains in Quebec in next fall’s election.
Polls show that a strong majority of Quebecers — including many who opposed the Parti Québécois charter last year — back the notion of a ban on wearing a niqab to receive or dispense public services.
Be that as it may, Harper’s strategy mostly smacks of self-defeating overkill. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings, his anti-terrorism agenda — including the Canadian military engagement in Iraq — was popular in its own right in Quebec.
The risks involved in venturing on the battlefield of collective values in the hope of consolidating that advantage are ultimately greater than the potential gains to the Conservatives.
In hindsight PQ strategists admit that ex-premier Pauline Marois could have fared better in last April’s election if she had just stuck to bread-and-butter issues.
For the reality is — as the Conservatives are starting to discover — that a values-driven political debate tends to act like a black hole on the rest of a government’s agenda.
That should suit Trudeau just fine. Many voters do not see the economy or — for that matter — foreign affairs as the Liberal leader’s forte. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, is in his political DNA.
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...on-hbert.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
After the prime minister said the niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-women,” confusion ensued within government ranks.
MONTREAL — Prime Minister Stephen Harper took his own troops by surprise when he ratcheted up his anti-niqab rhetoric in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
If the anecdotal evidence gathered over the course of subsequent conversations with members of the government — including some pretty senior ones — is any indication, it was not a pleasant surprise for all Conservatives.
In response to a question from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, Harper lashed out at critics of the government’s decision to appeal a court ruling that struck down the ban on wearing the face-covering niqab during a citizenship oath.
He accused them of embracing a piece of clothing whose existence is rooted in a culture hostile to women. Some Conservative MPs would have liked the prime minister to expand on that thesis, if only to make it clear that he was not talking about the entire Muslim faith. Others would have preferred that Harper steer clear of leading the government further unto the minefield of cultural accommodation.
What ensued was unusual confusion within government ranks. In the apparent absence of coherent talking points to explain Harper’s comments, at least one senior minister decided that retreating from the media front line was the better part of valour.
Others improvised as best they could — with decidedly mixed results. International Development Minister Christian Paradis opined that the citizenship oath niqab ban was only necessary for identification purposes. That’s also what GTA MP Costas Menegakis — the parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration — told The Canadian Press.
In fact, women who wear the niqab do take off their face-covering veil for the purpose of identification at citizenship ceremonies. They put it back on to take the oath.
Identification — as the Federal Court ruling that struck down the ban noted — is not at issue in this matter.
Treasury Board President Tony Clement defended the ban in the case of the citizenship oath but went on to say that wearing a niqab to work — including in the federal public service — was acceptable.
Few took up Harper’s “anti-women” thesis.
Still, by the time a large section of the Parliament Hill community convened for the annual Politics and the Pen dinner on Wednesday, the niqab had become fodder for the water-cooler conversations of the country — to the visible chagrin of more than a few Conservatives.
Many of them are disconcerted by the prime minister’s resolve to shift a debate on national security onto the shifting sands of the accommodation of certain minorities.
The first issue — pertaining to anti-terrorism — plays to a perceived strength of the ruling Conservatives. The other — relating to minority rights — is at the best of times uncertain terrain for any politician.
It was on a pit stop in Quebec last month that the prime minister jumped in front of the niqab parade by announcing the government’s appeal of the court decision to strike down the ban.
The political rationale behind that was that it could pave the way to Conservative gains in Quebec in next fall’s election.
Polls show that a strong majority of Quebecers — including many who opposed the Parti Québécois charter last year — back the notion of a ban on wearing a niqab to receive or dispense public services.
Be that as it may, Harper’s strategy mostly smacks of self-defeating overkill. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings, his anti-terrorism agenda — including the Canadian military engagement in Iraq — was popular in its own right in Quebec.
The risks involved in venturing on the battlefield of collective values in the hope of consolidating that advantage are ultimately greater than the potential gains to the Conservatives.
In hindsight PQ strategists admit that ex-premier Pauline Marois could have fared better in last April’s election if she had just stuck to bread-and-butter issues.
For the reality is — as the Conservatives are starting to discover — that a values-driven political debate tends to act like a black hole on the rest of a government’s agenda.
That should suit Trudeau just fine. Many voters do not see the economy or — for that matter — foreign affairs as the Liberal leader’s forte. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on the other hand, is in his political DNA.
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news...on-hbert.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
