Harper privately met Brampton sign vandals, photos show

[Aardvark154]

Harper privately met Brampton sign vandals, photos show.

Quite obviously we have very different definitions of a "private meeting" when the photograph shows the Prime Minister stepping off his campaign bus in a company parking lot with a photographer there to take said photograph.

Further there is no mention in the article of whether this photograph was taken before or after the alleged vandalism of campaign signs.

 

[fuji]

Which says only that he met with them

The article omits any mention of the reason why Harper met them, what their role was when he met them, or even the context of the meeting, but only describes him meeting privately with vandals.

That is insinuation and you are smart enough to know it.

 

[bver_hunter]

Prosecution yes. But is really stretching it to say that you need to have really any links to a candidate or party to put up signs.

Unless you are well known as a member of another party walk into any candidate's office and say that your would like six or seven signs to put up on property you own. I guarantee you that if they have them to spare they will give them to you.

Unless you have lots of spare time on your hands, why would you for the fun of it just go and put up some party signs?

 

[fuji]

Unless you have lots of spare time on your hands, why would you for the fun of it just go and put up some party signs?

There is no doubt that they were actively working on the campaign and committed illegal acts. The insinuation we are objecting to it is that Harper met with them knowing this, or even that the campaign sanctioned it.

 

[bver_hunter]

There is no doubt that they were actively working on the campaign and committed illegal acts. The insinuation we are objecting to it is that Harper met with them knowing this, or even that the campaign sanctioned it.

There is no mention that I insinuated that either Harper or the local party candidate were involved with the taking down of Liberal or NDP signs. Yes I mentioned about their links with the party and were not just outsiders randomly putting conservative party signs.

 

[Aardvark154]

There is no mention that I insinuated that either Harper or the local party candidate were involved with the taking down of Liberal or NDP signs. Yes I mentioned about their links with the party and were not just outsiders randomly putting conservative party signs.

However, again it is really stretching it well past the breaking point to imply that everyone who puts up signs is a paid employee of a Party, as a matter of fact in western democracies it is the opposite almost all are volunteers and their only link to the party or the candidate is that they support them.

Likewise relatively seldom is it discovered that those vandalizing political signs have a close connection to a candidate or are an employee of a political party, almost always they are just someone who has allowed their partisanship to overcome their sense of democracy and fair play.

 

[oldjones]

The article omits any mention of the reason why Harper met them, what their role was when he met them, or even the context of the meeting, but only describes him meeting privately with vandals.

That is insinuation and you are smart enough to know it.

No it is not an insinuation, it is a flat-out statement that there was a private meeting no more, no less. Whatever you think it insinuates, you are supplying entirely and wholly on your own, as did Butler.

 

[basketcase]

No it is not an insinuation, it is a flat-out statement that there was a private meeting no more, no less. Whatever you think it insinuates, you are supplying entirely and wholly on your own, as did Butler.

Yep. Twizz doesn't have a history of making ridiculous accusations so likely he was just bragging that he found some more campaign photos.

 

[oldjones]

Yep. Twizz doesn't have a history of making ridiculous accusations so likely he was just bragging that he found some more campaign photos.

However you are talking about the messenger, who I know and care nothing about, although he appears to have aroused more than a little animus. I am considering only the message.

It may well be that the writer's purpose was to have us think all those evil thoughts that Butler and fuji kindly articulated for him, but unlike those readers he didn't put them into direct words or indirect insinuations. In the mud-slinging days of election-campaigning i think only the naive would be paying attention to anything but explicit fact and logic , never mind supplying what isn't there. Not to mention being willing victims

 

[Butler1000]

However you are talking about the messenger, who I know and care nothing about, although he appears to have aroused more than a little animus. I am considering only the message.

It may well be that the writer's purpose was to have us think all those evil thoughts that Butler and fuji kindly articulated for him, but unlike those readers he didn't put them into direct words or indirect insinuations. In the mud-slinging days of election-campaigning i think only the naive would be paying attention to anything but explicit fact and logic , never mind supplying what isn't there. Not to mention being willing victims

You are only considering the message in its literal form because you see it as an easy potshot. But in this case the messenger is indeed important.

You as much as as anyone advocates reading between the lines OJ. Quite frankly I'm surprised you would go along with this type of tactic.

Normally I would think better of you but you may find your reputation tarnished a bit for advocating for twizz and his prolific trolling with baseless headlines.

 

[fuji]

No it is not an insinuation, it is a flat-out statement that there was a private meeting no more, no less. Whatever you think it insinuates, you are supplying entirely and wholly on your own, as did Butler.

Look up insinuation in your dictionary.

Insinuation isn't an explicit statement. By omitting the nature of the meeting, why they were there, why Harper met them, the impression is given that Harper met with vandals. He didn't. He met with a group of campaign workers not knowing two of them were vandals.

"Vandals slip in to meeting with Harper" is equally true but with a different insinuation.

 

[basketcase]

However you are talking about the messenger, ...

And his message is any ridiculous accusation to insult Harper (and our common sense).

 

[bver_hunter]

However, again it is really stretching it well past the breaking point to imply that everyone who puts up signs is a paid employee of a Party, as a matter of fact in western democracies it is the opposite almost all are volunteers and their only link to the party or the candidate is that they support them.

Likewise relatively seldom is it discovered that those vandalizing political signs have a close connection to a candidate or are an employee of a political party, almost always they are just someone who has allowed their partisanship to overcome their sense of democracy and fair play.

Depends how you describe close connection. These ones were present when Harper visited, and seem very likely to be true party members.

 

[oldjones]

You are only considering the message in its literal form because you see it as an easy potshot. But in this case the messenger is indeed important.

You as much as as anyone advocates reading between the lines OJ. Quite frankly I'm surprised you would go along with this type of tactic.

Normally I would think better of you but you may find your reputation tarnished a bit for advocating for twizz and his prolific trolling with baseless headlines.

Sorry, but if twizz had posted his words I would consider them his message, and might look for his insinuations. Even then I have no obligation to be aware of his history, if people want me to 'see' them, and that's all they have as evidence they exist. To persuade with logic and convince with fact is for the person making the point. Or trying to.

In any case, the piece clearly wasn't twizz's, but something from 'out-there' where hysterical over-reactions couples with extremism' on the interwebs. To my mind that's even more reason to take it — if at all — as nothing more than what the words actually said themselves.

Thanks for another example of mis-reading between the lines. And again making my point that identifying an accusation that only you put into words just serves the other side and damages yours. Until you guys piled on this twizz guy for an offence that was obvious only given your history with him, I neither knew nor cared there was such a poster. So I certainly haven't advocated for him, now or in the past. I have pointed out overstatements about the stuff he's clipped and posted. I likely will again; I cannot tolerate overstatement and will never ever allow it to go unpunished.

But thanks for directly stating what you incorrectly inferred so I can just as directly say that it is not true.

 

[Butler1000]

Sorry, but if twizz had posted his words I would consider them his message, and might look for his insinuations. Even then I have no obligation to be aware of his history, if people want me to 'see' them, and that's all they have as evidence they exist. To persuade with logic and convince with fact is for the person making the point. Or trying to.

In any case, the piece clearly wasn't twizz's, but something from 'out-there' where hysterical over-reactions couples with extremism' on the interwebs. To my mind that's even more reason to take it — if at all — as nothing more than what the words actually said themselves.

Thanks for another example of mis-reading between the lines. And again making my point that identifying an accusation that only you put into words just serves the other side and damages yours. Until you guys piled on this twizz guy for an offence that was obvious only given your history with him, I neither knew nor cared there was such a poster. So I certainly haven't advocated for him, now or in the past. I have pointed out overstatements about the stuff he's clipped and posted. I likely will again; I cannot tolerate overstatement and will never ever allow it to go unpunished.

But thanks for directly stating what you incorrectly inferred so I can just as directly say that it is not true.

You post it. You own it. Pretty simple really. Even the staunch opponents of the Conservatives see it for what it is.

Trying to defend it? Just makes look as bad as he does.

 

[oldjones]

And his message is any ridiculous accusation to insult Harper (and our common sense).

Is insult even possible?

Let me abandon this Brampton sign nonsense and talk a bit of common-sense and insinuations about Harper: A PM who met constantly, and privately with his Chief of Staff to deal with the smallest, most detailed and grandest and most far-reaching aspects of policy and government in both the party and the political worlds that he lead with such a sure hand, yet was never told, never learned of, and in no way directed his CoS's plan to bribe a Senator to the tune of $90,000 and 'make him whole again', is beyond any common-sense imaginings I am capable of.

A few smashed up signs is far more my speed, and I am certain the vandals likely are no Nigel Wrights, so even less likely Harper would notice. But if Ray Novak (the new CoS, skilled at de-naturing compromising meetings) arranged their meet-up with the PM we know there could be nothing nefarious to find out. Not even for a guy like me to imagine.

I think that's a pretty fair illustration of what insinuation reads like, don't you? It's been kinda scarce around here for awhile. Now just who is the "his' with the message in your post that you were asking me about?

 

[oldjones]

You post it. You own it. Pretty simple really. Even the staunch opponents of the Conservatives see it for what it is.

Trying to defend it? Just makes [you] look as bad as he does.

Did you quote the wrong post? I certainly stand by what you quoted; I'd barely typed the last period.

You referred to 'it' that even Conservatives and their opponents can see. Was that what you meant to refer to? I hate being left out, do tell. And who is this 'he' you think looks as bad as me?

 

[red]

I am hoping now we can have some real investigations into the dirty tricks in this and the last campaign

 

[fuji]

Is insult even possible?

Let me abandon this Brampton sign nonsense and talk a bit of common-sense and insinuations about Harper: A PM who met constantly, and privately with his Chief of Staff to deal with the smallest, most detailed and grandest and most far-reaching aspects of policy and government in both the party and the political worlds that he lead with such a sure hand, yet was never told, never learned of, and in no way directed his CoS's plan to bribe a Senator to the tune of $90,000 and 'make him whole again', is beyond any common-sense imaginings I am capable of.

A few smashed up signs is far more my speed, and I am certain the vandals likely are no Nigel Wrights, so even less likely Harper would notice. But if Ray Novak (the new CoS, skilled at de-naturing compromising meetings) arranged their meet-up with the PM we know there could be nothing nefarious to find out. Not even for a guy like me to imagine.

I think that's a pretty fair illustration of what insinuation reads like, don't you? It's been kinda scarce around here for awhile. Now just who is the "his' with the message in your post that you were asking me about?

Your post boils down to admitting Harper had no idea who these small potatoes were, but claiming that the dishonest, slanderous insinuation was OK because you think he is guilty of something else you also can't prove.

This is not going well for you....

 

[fuji]

I am hoping now we can have some real investigations into the dirty tricks in this and the last campaign

You will be disappointed, the dirty tricks were likely confined to a few overzealous staffers.

Reality check:

Harper was a Canadian patriot who served his country best he could and won the last few elections legitimately.

Now he has lost because his leadership style and his policies proved unpopular with Canadians, but that doesn't make him an evil person, and he wasn't.

He is just a person you disagree with, and that now most Canadians have disagreed with in an election.