Saturday, February 03, 2007

Ah, so that's what you mean by the word "discussion."


Bear with me, you're going to have to connect the dots on this one.

First, a quick trip in the wayback machine to the comments section back here, where Blogging Tory and Toronto Tory (I guess that makes him a Tory of some kind, just in case you didn't catch it the first time) William E. Demers insisted that all he wanted was a discussion -- you know, a free-flowing exchange of ideas, that sort of thing:

You guys need to grow up. Rather than calling me names, why don't you come discuss your opinions with me?

OK, then, let's hold that thought. Next, we refresh our memory as to Stephen Harper's breathtaking reversal on income trusts:


Still with me? Excellent. We can now close the circle with Mr. Demers' sanctimonious bragging about the one-year accomplishments of the Harper government here, where we find Demers bragging in his list:

...
3. Ended the Income Trust corporate tax loophole.
...

Stop and appreciate for a minute what our buddy William has just done.

He's taken a CPoC campaign promise in which Stephen Harper swore up and down that he would not touch income trusts and that it was those nasty, evil Liberals who were going to tax them and, Oh My God, how could they do that and he would never let that happen and think of the poor seniors and OHGODOHGODOHGOD ... SHRIIEEEEEEEEEKK!!!

But instead of shamedly admitting that Harper broke his own unambiguous campaign promise, Mr. Demers has simply tossed all that down the memory hole and has the sheer audacity (or depressing stupidity, take your pick) to actually list that broken promise as a laudable accomplishment for Harper.

How exactly do you respond to that? No, really. How do you wrap your head around such a blatant rewriting of political history? It's like watching American TV, and listening to the last few months of the Bush administration:


all of which inspires the obvious question -- how precisely does Mr. Demers suggest we have a "discussion" with someone who so casually and cavalierly revises history like that?

What would that discussion look like? How exactly do you have a meaningful conversation with someone who re-interprets and re-invents any history that he finds awkward or inconvenient? "Discuss," Mr. Demers? How? Using what rules of rhetoric that are in any way even remotely meaningful?

The real sticking point here, William, is not name calling or a lack of civility. It's the fact that we over here on the Left are part of the "reality-based community," and you're not. And until you come to grips with that, these "discussions" of yours aren't going to have a lot of value.

I'm just sayin'.

BY THE WAY, just in case you needed any reminding, this pretty much sums up your typical wanker-oriented discussion:



but I'm guessing you already knew that, right?

4 comments:

Mes Amis said...

When you go into the devilish details of Mr. Demers list you find a definite listing on the side of wishful thinking.

I'll take an easy one:

17. Ended the Softwood Lumber Dispute.

Sounds great. Peace in the family. One big happy.
Right.

Give away a billion of the five billion due and the problem is fixed?
What?
And they'll be back in seven years for another shakedown?
Some sort of protection racket or what?

Those guys make the Mafia look like pikers.

CC said...

Spaeking of the softwood lumber dispute, the last time I looked, it wasn't exactly resolved, was it?

What's the current status?

Scotian said...

It takes really powerful delusionary thinking to manage to turn a major broken election promise into a virtue that shows Canadians why they should reelect Harper. Which is unfortunately all too common in the online political right community. This person is a very good example of it; I had already become aware of him and his "thinking" on issues from reading the G&M comments pages, something I have been doing for many months although I never comment to them. This guy is definitely one of the Kool-Aid addicts.

This is the biggest problem with those that believe in the liberal media bias/conspiracy crap, it enables them to feel it is acceptable to have their own facts to go along with their own opinions and that to try and claim that they are not entitled to their own facts only means you are trying to censor/propagandize them and that by doing so you prove you are the ones making stuff up. The circular reasoning that lies at the heart of so much CPC/movement conservative rhetoric like the liberal media bias crap is both the key to their successes in America in winning elections AND why they can't actually govern competently worth a damn.

This is what Harper and company feel Canada needs more of than we have as demonstrated by his importation of these tools from the GOP experts, and far too many fools like this person are more than ready to go along with him. After all, it is for our own good don't you know...*sigh* (That last sentence is probably responsible for more evil done in the world than any other single reason IMHO)

Mes Amis said...

Looked into the final implementation as of Oct. 12 2006.

Americans were pleased with the settlement:
'WASHINGTON D.C. - U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) today praised the implementation of Canadian export taxes agreed to as part of a September 12th settlement reached between the United States and Canada over a long running softwood lumber trade dispute.'

Canadian producers were told to shut up and take what they could get:
'The NDP has charged that the softwood lumber agreement is only taking effect on Thursday because Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government used a legal "sledgehammer" to quash lawsuits.'

Canada's new government showing us how to get things done.
Thirty lawsuits swept under the carpet and nearly $1.3 billion given up to fund what will no doubt be more US trade action in the future.
I guess it's what happens when you take a limp dick to a knife fight.



T