Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Stephane - Give your head a shake!

Short post today due to excess snowfall. However, as I glimpse at today's headlines, I wonder how the Liberals can even consider joining the opposition parties to allow the anti-terrorism measures to expire.

National Newswatch has a story up about Canadian oil and gas facilities being a terror target.

Another story here about terror concerns regarding the 2010 Games.

Why let our guard down now? Is Dion really concerned about civil liberties, or is this just a crass political gesture designed to undermine the current government?

Of course, the Liberals are all about ethics and integrity, right?

Yeah, right. Somebody get me that shovel.


* * * *

Update: Happy Valentine's Day, PMSH! Angus Reid...


Further Update: Will there be an election over Kyoto? Check out Step to the Right, Crux of the Matter.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Joanne - I thought you were in the grip of a "global warming summer" down there.

OF course even in "summer" you can be expected to get the occasional global warming dust storm. Unfortunately that global warming dust is as hard to shovel as snow was!

Hee Hee.

Good post though - good luck digging that dust!

Alberta Girl said...

Sorry Joanne - my finger slipped and I inadvertently posted as Anonymous in that first comment.

Danged fingers don't even work - I am blaming global warming!!!!

Anonymous said...

Devastating consequences on economy (Kyto compliance)

Risk of devastating terrorist attack increasing (not renewing terror initiative)

Lets not let reality/real life consequences get in the way of Dion's sprint toward the left.

Jason Bo Green said...

No no no, "Canada" is not under threat from Al-Quaeda, "Alberta" is. Why would eastern politicians suddenly care???

biff said...

Man, is this guy the political kiss of death.

Dion tries in vien to play the green angle, only to highlight his hypocracy and force him to overplay the issue, so he tries to change the channel, to attacking the CPC on its anti-terrorism legislation,

and what happens?

A major terror threat is released, specifically targetting Canada.

To add icing on the cake, the terror target just happens to be the same target of Dion's/Holland's "consequences".

Has Dion done anything right?v

Anonymous said...

Told ya'.....this was the story that I mentioned the National Post carried a few days ago, although it was on a sideline under World News. I couldn't reference to it online, because I read it in the hard copy of the paper.

I live in Alberta, and some of the people here have voiced their concerns for a couple of years now.

Anon #83

Red Tory said...

Didn't you already cover this topic on Monday (when you called everyone on the left "loonies")? Perhaps you just can't stem that tide of ginned up phony outrage and fretful paranoia. Good luck with that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, you gotta think up some new insults. Those are getting a bit old.

Red Tory said...

So are your wearisome attacks on Dion.

Besides, I’m not allowed to use “colourful” insults here lest I offend your delicate sensibilities and get my comment flushed down the toilet as a result.

Anonymous said...

Ah, this "topic" was covered on Monday. Whew!!! Thank God it's Wednesday, and there are no more terrorism threats....not even the ones reported in the news.

If there was an imminent threat (and no one except the terrorists know when something will actually happen)....would you want PM Stephen Harper or Dion protecting you? That's funny I know....."It's not fair!!!....it's not easy to make priorities!!!Ouch, help....someone help me please....help me Stephen Harper, please!" Even Dion would want Stephen Harper protecting him.

anon #83

Brian in Calgary said...

Didn't you already cover this topic on Monday (when you called everyone on the left "loonies")?

But since then, RT, we've got these two news reports about Canada being a terror target, one of them from the Saudi arm of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. Maybe you feel comfortable about taking a chance, but I sure don't. Insurance, my friend, insurance.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Alberta Girl - We're not allowed to joke about global warming anymore. It's not politically correct. (Watch out for the Kyoto Kops.)

Anon #83 - So that was you, eh? I believed you; I just needed a link. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I figured it out: Dion want's to see all of us dead... he is the leader of a death cult! Help!!
(real conservative)

Red Tory said...

Anon #83 -- Is Stephen Harper going to be out there personally thwarting potential jihadists and bagging terrorists? “Who would you want protecting you?” Sheesh! What childish nonsense.

Brian -- This is old news. I heard these stories months ago. If I was of a suspicious mind I might wonder why they are being recycled now.

Yes, yes… insurance. I’ve yet to hear how the Criminal Code is inadequate to the task.

liberal supporter said...

"We're not allowed to joke about global warming anymore. It's not politically correct."

Can we still joke about Steve's waistline?

Because, for once, I would choose Stephen Harper, rather than Stephane Dion to stand between me and the guy with the bomb belt. Steve has a considerably higher throw weight and stopping power, and being a larger target area, would provide more complete protection in his shadow.

Now if it was a second storey sniper, I think Dion is taller and might afford more protection. But put Jack on a small pedestal, and his swelled head would stop a bazooka.

liberal supporter said...

Has there been any discussion of the amendments?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Can we still joke about Steve's waistline?

Why not? Dion does. He like dead dog jokes too.

Bam!

Anonymous said...

Red Tory.....oy vey....gee, I thought that Stephen Harper was actually going to be out there thwarting off terrorists.....he's not!!! Shucks!!

It was meant to be a comparison between someone who's a leader (Harper) between someone who's a baby (Dion...It's not fair, Dion).

It's old news this latest threat? See, you aren't up on things and yet you have such strong opinions.

See the front page of the Edmonton Journal. Scroll down the left side of the page.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/index.html

"The message is contained in Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad), the group's online magazine. A feature article, entitled Bin Laden's Oil Weapon, encouraged operatives to continue to follow earlier directives from bin Laden to strike oil targets not only in Saudi Arabia.....Three western countries are mentioned in the call-to-arms ---Canada first, followed by Mexico and Venezuela. Would-be attackers are instructed to specifically target oilfields, pipelines, loading platforms and carriers."

The only childish nonsense here is Red Tory's, who's afraid to face the truth. And, who would be useless in a terrorist attack, because he would still be denying the threat.

anon #83

liberal supporter said...

And how do the amendments make us unsafe?

Red Tory said...

Anon #65489762 -- It was meant to be a comparison between someone who's a leader (Harper) between someone who's a baby (Dion...It's not fair, Dion).

Good one. Build your whole view of the man around a 3 second clip taken out of context from a debate.

It's old news this latest threat? See, you aren't up on things and yet you have such strong opinions.

It is old news. I've certainly heard this story before. But it seems you have that reading impairment endemic to Conservatives. Read your own post doofus: A feature article, entitled Bin Laden's Oil Weapon, encouraged operatives to continue to follow earlier directives from bin Laden to strike oil targets not only in Saudi Arabia... Get that? Earlier directives. This isn't new, it was just reiterated in an article that appeared in some online magazine.

The only childish nonsense here is Red Tory's, who's afraid to face the truth.

Which truth would that be? That you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the Blogging Tory drawer?

And, who would be useless in a terrorist attack, because he would still be denying the threat.

What would YOUR defense be? To fart in their general direction?

Red Tory said...

LS -- They don't like to discuss why the Conservatives refused to introduce the sub-committee's recommendations as amendments. They dodge and evade that. They won't address how the Criminal Code is inadequate either. They ignore that. Fact of the matter is that they don't know WTF they're talking about. Nothing new there.

Anonymous said...

Red-faced Tory, you never answered why you call yourself Red Tory???

Your insults are truly juvenile.

Guess your comprehension of "continue to follow earlier directives" is confused. What part of "continue" don't you understand?

If this isn't news today, why is it the headline story in the Edmonton Journal, the Globe and Mail, etc.?

You aren't anyone who can have a discussion "in good faith" from what I've read of you. I do think that answering you is a waste of time, and that all you will do, one day at a time, is show up on some blog to dig at someone, or something, because you certainly don't show that you care about Canada or fellow Canadians. I assume you are Canadian???

Don't bother answering, because I'm not bothering reading. You can call me whatever you like, because I consider it a compliment to have someone like you insult me.

Now that I have a sense of who you are and what your hidden agenda is, having you "like me" would be an incredible insult. It would be the same as a mentally ill patient thinking that I was their best friend because we could have long intelligent discussions together.

anon #83

Red Tory said...

Red-faced Tory, you never answered why you call yourself Red Tory???

Why do you care? Why should I waste my time explaining myself to you "Anonymous"? Why do you use three question marks?

Guess your comprehension of "continue to follow earlier directives" is confused. What part of "continue" don't you understand?

“Continue” as in a perpetuation of something from the past. Funny, I was just watching Newsnet and the announcer said, they didn’t know whether this was a new threat or just a recycled old threat. CSIS also doesn’t know whether this constitutes a serious threat.

If this isn't news today, why is it the headline story in the Edmonton Journal, the Globe and Mail, etc.?

Media hype? It’s a juicy story. Lots of “fear factor” appeal. News organizations like to scare people.

Also, please back up your truck a little and put this in context. Brian said that the reason it was important that the anti-terrorism provisions needed to be extended now was because of of these “new threats.” To which I said that these were not exactly “new” given I’d heard the same threats when they were initially made quite some time ago. Essentially this is just a reiteration of what we were already aware of.

You aren't anyone who can have a discussion "in good faith" from what I've read of you.

Well, you do have that reading problem, so I’m not going to lose too much sleep over your assessment in this regard.

I do think that answering you is a waste of time, and that all you will do, one day at a time, is show up on some blog to dig at someone, or something, because you certainly don't show that you care about Canada or fellow Canadians.

What unmitigated piffle. How does your unoriginal and hopelessly unfunny routine "It's not fair!!!....it's not easy to make priorities!!!Ouch, help....someone help me please....help me Stephen Harper, please!" demonstrate your concern for Canada? Why do you show up on blogs other than to take swipes at Dion and piss on the Liberals? Is that how you demonstrate care for your fellow Canadians? Sheesh! Self-righteous much? What a silly person.

I assume you are Canadian???

Again with the three question marks. Weird. As to your question, it depends on how you define “Canadian.”

Don't bother answering, because I'm not bothering reading. You can call me whatever you like, because I consider it a compliment to have someone like you insult me.

Too bad this is Joanne’s blog. Seeing as you’re not reading I could have a lot of amusement with the response, but she’s a fun foiler that way.

Now that I have a sense of who you are and what your hidden agenda is, having you "like me" would be an incredible insult. It would be the same as a mentally ill patient thinking that I was their best friend because we could have long intelligent discussions together.

You know nothing about who I am, but my, how clever that you were able to suss out my nefarious “hidden agenda.” And don’t worry, there’s very little chance of me liking you. Anon #83 and “intelligent discussions” doesn't seem like a natural fit in my opinion.