Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should Gary Nicholls, the CBC's new anti-Harper-stooge-on-demand be de-listed from Blogging Tories?
Yes
20%
 20%  [ 6 ]
No
80%
 80%  [ 24 ]
Total Votes : 30

Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7514
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The choice on this matter will ultimately be up to Craig and Stephen.

However for the sake of my two cents;
Gerry Nicholls' opinions on some issues seem to represent some folks on the right. While I feel on some issues he seems to come off as having an axe to grind with the Prime Minister he does at times makes some relevant points.

Banning him is IMO an extreme measure and unnecessary.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if you partisans are mad at him, I am going to have to head over there and see what he is right about.

Rather than get mad and attack the guy, why not get Harper to do a better job? Maybe get him to pull economic conservatism from under the bus and give it some mouth to mouth?
Jason Kauppinen





Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 113
Reputation: 74.2
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There is a genuine personal dislike between Gerry and Harper and THAT is what motivates Gerry - not some ideological conflict.


Has Gerry Nichols ever flat out written or said that he doesn't like Stephen Harper personally?
Craig Smith





Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42Reputation: 42

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason Kauppinen wrote:
Quote:
There is a genuine personal dislike between Gerry and Harper and THAT is what motivates Gerry - not some ideological conflict.


Has Gerry Nichols ever flat out written or said that he doesn't like Stephen Harper personally?


Why does that matter. There are certain members of this forum that I don't like even though I haven't explicitly stated so.
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig Smith wrote:
This debate is not about "true conservatives" vs. CPC conservatives.

Threads on this board quite often devolve into a "I am more conservative than you" pissing contest. Isn't what this is about? "If you criticize Harper, you are not a conservative, CPC or otherwise". At least that is way I started to see how people were treated here. I only posted 3 times in 2010 (2 were about the Men's Hockey team at the Olympics) and barely lurked in the forums, so maybe this attitude has changed.

Craig Smith wrote:
It is about Gerry's single-minded hatred of Harper. The only reason he is even given a platform to talk is because the Toronto Star (and other lefty outlets) love having conservatives on who will bash Harper. There is a genuine personal dislike between Gerry and Harper and THAT is what motivates Gerry - not some ideological conflict.


Maybe I have to read Toronto Star (a paper I read 0 out of 365 days because I live in Vancouver) or watch the CBC (I only watch Hockey Night in Canada and lately "The Pillars of the Earth") because I don't get that. The way I understand Nicholls is that he is upset with Harper the PM compared to Harper when he worked at the NCC. Where Nicholls' analysis falls down is that he fails to acknowledge the role of a minority government and how that handcuffs Harper. My judgment of Harper will be of his majority government, but if Nicholls wants to judge Harper on this government, then that is his prerogative.

Craig Smith wrote:
Your other statements about "certain members" having "man love" for Harper is just childish. People who have beliefs in line with Harpers actions are just as welcome here as anyone else and if "certain members" can't stand being around people like that then so be it.


Just count the Harper avatars on this board and read the associated posts. No one is perfect and Harper does not walk on water and sometimes I think that "certain members" (emphasis yours) seem to forget that. There is always room for improvement.

BTW, I did not let the door hit me on the way out.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palomino_pony wrote:


Just count the Harper avatars on this board and read the associated posts. No one is perfect and Harper does not walk on water and sometimes I think that "certain members" (emphasis yours) seem to forget that. There is always room for improvement.


Well you're not understanding the perspective that is being drawn here around our conservative prime minister.

As i said before...most voters are not party members of any sort - they are the average people who vote one way or another.

These voters are not ideology driven and many of them aren't even specifically issue driven. How then do they decide on their vote?

As superficial as it sounds many will vote based on the likability of a particular leader.

The NDP and the Liberals build up their leaders by tearing down and fear-mongering Stephen Harper. They are trying to build their respective party leader's images at the expense of Mr. Harper's by falsely portraying Mr. Harper's personality. As people click around the internet - they will encounter enough anti-Harper material.

If there seems to be a fan club of sorts here...I would remind critics of this fact.

It should be noted that I have not always liked Mr. Harper! I too was once one of them cyber-fear mongers! Then one day I decided to be fair and look at things in proper perspective. Mr. Harper's 'common everyday person' personality was what first drew me toward sincerely looking into the Conservative perspective!

I see long term potential for the good of Canada within this prime minister...and I'm willing to post it too :wink:
Jason Kauppinen





Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 113
Reputation: 74.2
votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig Smith wrote:
Jason Kauppinen wrote:
Quote:
There is a genuine personal dislike between Gerry and Harper and THAT is what motivates Gerry - not some ideological conflict.


Has Gerry Nichols ever flat out written or said that he doesn't like Stephen Harper personally?


Why does that matter. There are certain members of this forum that I don't like even though I haven't explicitly stated so.


It's important to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Gerry Nichols has the right to be wrong and he also has the right to be wrong for his own reason(s). People can speculate on his reasons but ultimately without reference to what he's said or done it's just speculation.

palomino_pony wrote:
Where Nicholls' analysis falls down is that he fails to acknowledge the role of a minority government and how that handcuffs Harper. My judgment of Harper will be of his majority government, but if Nicholls wants to judge Harper on this government, then that is his prerogative.


I'm in full agreement with that--there's also this to consider:

How can someone believe in:

1. The critical importance of grass-roots party dynamics.

2. Expect that massive swings in what and how Canadians think about an issue must be generated by what *any* PM does.

at the same time.
FoxtrotBravo





Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Reputation: 105.1
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

:idea:
I have been swayed by the many arguments supporting Nicholls here: I have seen the light, and I apologize for my transgressions and harsh words.

Since like the many here, I now also see him as a true professional, with only the good of the conservative movement at heart, I guess it's only matter of time before Nicholls volunteers himself to be taken off the blog role because of the conflict of interest. I'm guessing that taking the initiative to request that he be taken off the list is something that our good friend Gerry has just overlooked, or not really had the chance to consider, because of his busy media schedule.
Daveeire





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 236
Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thing is ricocheting all over the place. I got bounced back her from another site. I already voted but I say keep him around - it's good for traffic.
Daveeire





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 236
Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2Reputation: 37.2

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Foxtrotbravo - you joined BT just before I did, posted about a third as many posts but you have more stars - I salute you for that - quality counts it seems.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jason Kauppinen wrote:
People can speculate on his reasons but ultimately without reference to what he's said or done it's just speculation.


I hereby declare that all future posts I make in these internet forums are speculative unless otherwise noted.

This saves me from having to write "IMHO" after everything I state.
Ardvark





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 150
Reputation: 54.4
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course his opinions should not cause him to be removed, but his constant look at me, look at me, top 5 minds BS and fame/attention whoring might just be enough to make me think about it. :roll:

His constant self promotion does get annoying fast; in fact just look at how he is using this thread ( and various Stephen Taylor comments on the subject) to attract attention to himself. For a guy who claims that principles should stand above all, he isn't above knowingly distorting others comments and opinions to promote himself.
Jason Kauppinen





Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 113
Reputation: 74.2
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Jason Kauppinen wrote:
People can speculate on his reasons but ultimately without reference to what he's said or done it's just speculation.


I hereby declare that all future posts I make in these internet forums are speculative unless otherwise noted.

This saves me from having to write "IMHO" after everything I state.


:lol:

I have this leftist acquaintance who has a habit of telling the person he's talking to why they think the way they do--I find it pretty obnoxious. So I make a habit of asking people about their own motives for doing something whenever possible, if I want to know what it is.
DavidK





Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1520
Reputation: 68.5
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ardvark wrote:
Of course his opinions should not cause him to be removed, but his constant look at me, look at me, top 5 minds BS and fame/attention whoring might just be enough to make me think about it. :roll:


Hey, if that's how he acts for the public to see... Just imagine him at home! :shock:

Geez, I feel sorry for Mrs. Nicholls! :(
FoxtrotBravo





Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 108
Reputation: 105.1
votes: 2

PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Nichols got me into all this Reply with quote

Alex Fernandes wrote:
I became a member of the CPC because of Gerry Nichols.

I was always a Conservative but was happy to just vote and cheer from the nose bleed section.

Then one day I'm watching The National and there is Gerry extolling everyone not to donate to the CPC anymore.

WHAT!? I thought. This guy wants this government to be stillborn? After all that work and highly improbable success this guy wants me to turn my back on the only organization that can face down the Liberal dirt bags.

No Fracking Way. So I got my membership. Made a donation, and began my journey.

True Story.

Now, whenever I hear the puritan bleating reach too high a pitch a make a point to modestly sustain the CPC.

Thanks Gerry.


That's a great story.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Gerry Nicholls should be de-listed from Blogging Tories

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB