Harper privately met Brampton sign vandals, photos show

[Butler1000]

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?

"It" is the most obvious insinuation he tried to infer.

He is Twizz who posted it with an inflamitory headline.

You are the guy who tried to defend it as not a slanderous post.

 

[guelph]

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.

?????
In and out funding

Robo calls for vote suppression

Attack ads

All part of legitimate campaign Not!!!

 

[fuji]

?????
In and out funding

Robo calls for vote suppression

Attack ads

All part of legitimate campaign Not!!!

All of which pale compared to paying for your campaign staff with public money.

None of this stuff altered the outcome of any election and most of it, the really bad stuff, was not centrally planned.

You need to accept that Canadians chose Harper then, fairly, just as they have now chosen Justin, fairly.

 

[oldjones]

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....

It's going fine, thank you. You read my deliberate insinuations and summarized them pretty accurately, although once again citing only your thoughts and giving no evidence they were also the writer's (that's me). That's OK, I know what I intended you to read, and to read into my post.

Now, all that's left for you to make your point is to supply the evidence that backs up your particular thoughts about a writer whose intentions we know only from the words we both read. Without that evidence all you are doing is demanding others think as you because you're outshouting them. Let me shout back: Show me the bits in the OP's cut and paste that back up your assertion it was insinuating Harper did more than simply meet these guys.

Too bad you couldn't answer the question I asked basket when I posted the reply to him that you quoted. It might have helped me understand what you guys are on about, I'll have to wait for him.

 

[fuji]

Again, the thread title shows it. That bit. Describing them only as being vandals while omitting why they met Harper and in what context makes it sound like he knew he was meeting with people who were vandals, perhaps because they were vandals.

Again, "Vandals slip past security and meet with Prime Minister" is an equally true description of that event yet with a totally different insinuation.

 

[oldjones]

Again, the thread title shows it. That bit. Describing them only as being vandals while omitting why they met Harper and in what context makes it sound like he knew he was meeting with people who were vandals, perhaps because they were vandals.

Again, "Vandals slip past security and meet with Prime Minister" is an equally true description of that event yet with a totally different insinuation.

Considering article says Harper was visiting the company owned by one of the men, where the meeting took place, I hardly think your hypothetical works.

The men, who have been identified as Balkar Jhutti and Harvinder Rai of Brampton, Ontario, privately met Harper at the premises of a company owned by Jhutti, a Conservative donor.

The usual pussyfooting of 'alleged' was missing from the title, but the articles clearly state further in that the identified men were videoed at the scene but not in the act. So the only insinuation I can read into the title is that the men are the vandals; nothing to do with Harper. At this stage, after the Ford Years, surely we grown-ups all know it's only an accusation against the men, how likely a one is why we read on. But at worst all we know, or can say about Harper is that he and some bad men were in a room. And that's all that was said — or insinuated about him — there.

I'm old enough to remember a catch-phrase about Caesar's wife and being virtuous. Whether she really was or wasn't didn't matter; all eyes were going to be on her, and everything seen would have its cost. Same with Harper; it's how politics works, insinuations aren't needed, and explanations don't help.