Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Fuck you, Helena Guergis, you useless cunt.


March 10, 2008:

Canada's secretary of state for foreign affairs says she cares about the health of an ailing Canadian woman imprisoned in a Mexican jail, but has no authority to bring her home.

"It's a foreign country and she's in a foreign judicial system," Helena Guergis told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Monday from Yellowknife, N.W.T.

"Canada does not have any control over the government of Mexico or their judicial process. Any suggestion that a politician can influence a judge's decision is completely inappropriate."

March 17, 2008:

Conservative MP Jason Kenney is going to Mexico on Tuesday to meet with government officials and ask for the release of imprisoned Canadian Brenda Martin, CTV News has learned.

Kenney, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, hopes to follow up on Wednesday with a visit to Martin, who is on suicide watch.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier met with his Mexican counterpart on Monday, pushing the country to accelerate Martin's case.

From "We can't do nuthin'" to "Hey, we are so all over this" in seven days flat.

Stupid, fucking, worthless Helena Guergis.

LET ME MAKE A PREDICTION
. Having only recently (and due solely to the overwhelming public pressure) become interested in the plight of Brenda Martin, Canada's conservatives, if they manage to spring Martin, will undoubtedly parade around her withered husk of a body and brag about how the Stephen Harper Party of Canada is all about "standing up for Canadians."

For the record, this is how interested the Blogging Tories are right now:



Let's see how quickly that changes, shall we?

69 comments:

Nullig said...

Well it took them a few days to get the polling done, to correctly gauge the "will of the people". Guess they didn't get too many "law and order" types in the mix.

Ti-Guy said...

Oh, darn. The boys end up making Miss Huronia look like a fool again.

Does she even care? Probably not.

ALW said...

You just had to use the c-word again, eh? What, merely calling her a bitch wouldn't carry the same weight?

Ti-Guy said...

Not nearly. Just like bastard is too mild to describe most conservative males and requires...cock-sucker.

Aaron, you know that.

At least no one's accusing Guergis of pedophilia or treason, which is what Conservatives do...in Parliament, even.

LuLu said...

Oh fuck off, Aaron and go clutch your pearls on your own blog. Would you have been less offended if I called her a "cunt" since I'm a girl, too?

For what it's worth, her own party obviously has questions about her usefulness since they sent Jason Kenney in her place. Or is this just another case of Big Daddy pushing the little woman aside so the men can deal with the tough stuff? Decisions, decisions …

ALW said...

Well Ti, I'm certainly glad the progressosphere is doing it's bit to help raise the level of discourse. Just imagine how bad things could get if the likes of Cynic, LuLu and yourself didn't spend every waking moment exposing how vile conservatives are - and subsequently doing your very best impressions of their vulgarity!

Charming, this whole business is.

CC said...

Good God, Aaron, does someone really need to explain to you the difference between a "cunt" and a "bitch?" For the record, I would never refer to Guergis as a "bitch" simply because she's such an utterly vacuous non-entity. Happy now?

And as for "vile," Aaron, well, let me introduce you to one of your BT colleagues. The compassion purely drips off the page, doesn't it?

Now go away, Aaron. Grown-ups talking.

CC said...

By the way, Aaron, for someone who hasn't written a single post asking that your party and its pompous, well-fed socialites step in and assist Brenda Martin, you have a lot of fucking nerve stopping by here and whining about the language.

The day you demonstrate that you give a fuck about Martin is the day you've earned the right to drop by and chastise the rest of us.

Clear?

ALW said...

Gee, I'm beginning to think I'm not welcome in these parts...

I kid, I kid.

ALW said...

Yeah, sure. Because if I had, I’m sure you would have apologized profusely for using the c-word.

On that note, your total failure to write several posts about Beijing’s recent repressions of Tibet is clearly an indication that you don’t give a shit about the situation. That seems to be about the logic you're applying here.

CC said...

Aaron:

In all seriousness, it's getting really tiresome to note that the only thing Canada's conservatives seem to care about is the delicacy of discourse.

A Canadian citizen locked up in an overcrowded cell in Mexico for two years without trial? Yeah, what's your problem?

Some anonymous, non-entity blogger who uses colourful language? OHMIGOD, OHMIGOD, OHMIGOD, SHRIIEEEEKKKKKK!!!!

You folks badly need to have your priorities realigned. And maybe, must maybe, start giving a damn about what happens to other people.

That would be a nice start.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

ALW, if calling Guergis a bitch were to carry the same weight, then it would have to offend you equally, and it would thus behoove you to object just as you have here.

And we would now be reading this: "You just had to use the b-word, again, eh? What, merely calling her a sometimes ineffective secretary of state for foreign affairs wouldn't carry the same weight?"

frank said...

You go girl!!!
Maybe those nasty neoconsevative bastards could show at least half as much compassion as those ever caring liberals showed William Sampson...but,but,but, thats not the same!!!!

CC said...

*Snicker*.

Aaron writes:

"On that note, your total failure to write several posts about Beijing’s recent repressions of Tibet is clearly an indication that you don’t give a shit about the situation. That seems to be about the logic you're applying here."

Nice try, Aaron, but you lose. In my case, I don't need to blog about every single issue involving injustice or violation of peoples' rights for a simple reason. And that's because I've built up a record of blogging about that kind of stuff.

In short, Aaron, after 7500+ posts here, I've got some street cred when it comes to giving a crap about civil rights, and womens' rights, and gay rights and so on. Which means that, if I just happen to take a pass on some story for one reason or another, I'm entitled. I've earned it.

If you want to make the argument you made above, then you can back it up with your portfolio. Otherwise, you might want to tread really, really carefully when calling my left-wing progressivism into question. Know what I'm sayin'?

ALW said...

CC:
In all seriousness, if you could ever treat an individual commenter as an individual, instead of instantly making that particular individual responsible for everything fucking lunatic comment that's ever been uttered by someone with whom he/she happens to share an opinion with on anything, I would bother to engage you. Except I can’t show up here without immediately being held responsible for the fact some guy who muttered something about immigrants from his basement in Peterborough. Where’s the logic in that?

liberal supporter said...

Oh but it is exactly the same, "frank".

Except the CPC claimed they would do things differently. They claimed the moral high ground. Now they have pretty much lost all of it. Now they are reduced to blubbering but we swear less.

In the Samson case, he is a dual Canadian and British national. Prince Charles is said to have interceded. The Canadian government of the day should have pushed harder, but they may have been coordinating their efforts with Britain.

They certainly were not callously claiming they can't do anything, as your ineffective Guergis dissembles, while their shrieking mouthpieces say "let Martin rot".

I'll take flawed but caring and compassionate (any of the parties except the CPC) over the haters party of "I'm all right Jack".

ALW said...

Sounds like you are changing the rules as you go along. The reason I don’t have to hold myself to that standard is that I don’t apply that standard to anyone else. In making the above argument, I’m merely applying your standard to yourself I don’t place a negative onus on people whereby I infer that if you don’t write about X, you don’t care about it. Rather, I see what you’ve said on X. Or I ask you. Your “conspicuous omission” standard doesn’t mean you get to haul in general principles as a defense - otherwise, I could just point out I obviously oppose incarceration without due process. But because I haven’t been begging on my blog specifically about Brenda Martin, you can still claim I don’t care about it.

As for street cred, well, believe what you want to my friend. But whatever your professional reasons for your anonymity, that fact will always seriously undermine any claims you might be able to make about how seriously others take you. Which is a shame - but that’s the choice you’ve made.

LuLu said...

On that note, your total failure to write several posts about Beijing’s recent repressions of Tibet is clearly an indication that you don’t give a shit about the situation.

Nice try, Aaron. And by the way, where are all of your posts on Tibet?

Ti-Guy said...

Except I can’t show up here without immediately being held responsible for the fact some guy who muttered something about immigrants from his basement in Peterborough. Where’s the logic in that?

Who did that? The only thing I hold you responsible for is your constant need to shift focus away from the actual substance of an issue and to insist that the discussion be about "tone" and civility.

Why do you do that, exactly? Is it just combativeness/sheer bloody-mindedness, or is there some real policy issue here that you're concerned about?

Or do you just like talking to us, because, deep down, you do realise just how really stupid/mean/uninteresting Conservatives are?

I know that's the conclusion I came to many years ago. Even if I think Conservative policy is not always objectionable, I'm simply not going to be identified with that collection of selfish feebs, dweebs, frat boys and mean girls, who've been so very wrong for so very long.

liberal supporter said...

Lulu: 1
Aaron: pwned

LuLu said...

But whatever your professional reasons for your anonymity, that fact will always seriously undermine any claims you might be able to make about how seriously others take you. Which is a shame - but that’s the choice you’ve made.

Oh look, kids – we have a new Blogging Tory yardstick courtesy of Aaron. No one is ever going to take us seriously here at CC-HQ as long as we a) swear, and b) blog pseudonymously. Woe is us ... but not really.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

FIRST!!

Ti-Guy said...

In the Samson case, he is a dual Canadian and British national. Prince Charles is said to have interceded. The Canadian government of the day should have pushed harder, but they may have been coordinating their efforts with Britain.

And remember as well, that pissing off the House of Saud can come at a very high price, especially with Bush and King Abdullah holding hands and kissing...in public!

Harper's problem is that he's PM at a time when global alliances are shifting/crumbling, and he frankly doesn't know what to do. Of course, being simply Canadian and acting in accordance with traditional Canadian values, law and foreign policy wouldn't occur to him.

Thus, the hesitance, tentativeness and incoherence.

Paul Martin had the same problem.

Red Tory said...

On that note, your total failure to write several posts about Beijing’s recent repressions of Tibet is clearly an indication that you don’t give a shit about the situation.

You mean like the one PSA wrote on Friday called "China's Crimes in Tibet"?

Oops. Darn those pesky facts!

ALW said...

Um, I realize that you folks tilt towards collectivism, but since when did what PSA write become attributable to CC?

Is that really all you've got?

And LuLu, you can dance around the cowardice that is your anonymity all you want, but it's still cowardice, pure and simple.

liberal supporter said...

I can't speak for others, but yes, I am a coward. Look what happened to Raphael Alexander. He strayed from the party line, and then "just happened" to get laid off.

We know how vicious your people are. Feel free to sneer about anonymity, but you would be anonymous too if we had stormtroopers harassing your employer until you got fired. There can be no other explanation for the frantic attempts to identify people here. No other explanation but a desire to do harm. Either by sending thugs to "visit", or by continuous harassment of the person's employer or clientele, making the person's work life impossible, thus depriving them of their livelihood.

You know this to be true. Dance around it all you like, asshole. Now fuck off, fascist.

CC said...

Aaron finally makes a total prat of himself when he writes:

"Um, I realize that you folks tilt towards collectivism, but since when did what PSA write become attributable to CC?"

Let me explain this to you, Aaron, in short words that even you can understand.

There are three of us here at Chez CC. And there are thousands of topics on which we can choose to write.

My co-blogger PSA chose to write a piece last Friday on the Chinese repression of Tibet. Since he did that, I didn't particularly the need to cover that same ground. What would be the point in writing a post whose essence was little more than, "Yeah! What he said!"

I'm seriously concerned with the egregious Canadian version of the DMCA legislation, but you won't find me writing post after post on that because, again, PSA has that covered nicely, so I can move on and towel snap someone else in the nads.

Seriously, Aaron, is that the crux of your argument? That I can't possibly be interested in certain topics because I don't blog on them incessantly? Is that really the best you can do? That is absolutely beyond feeble.

Oh, and Aaron? When the most devastating argument you can muster against me is that I have no credibility because I choose to blog anonymously, well, you've now descended into being pathetic.

I'll tell you what, Aaron. When you can churn out 7000+ posts, and not have anyone be able to identify a single deliberate falsehood or misrepresentation in one of them, then you can lecture me on credibility.

Until then, just put a sock in it, OK?

LuLu said...

And LuLu, you can dance around the cowardice that is your anonymity all you want, but it's still cowardice, pure and simple.

*yawn*

Are my feelings supposed to be hurt now? Sorry Aaron, but you don't know me nearly well enough to make that kind of judgement call.

Ti-Guy said...

you can dance around the cowardice that is your anonymity all you want, but it's still cowardice, pure and simple.

Aaron, if I knew you in real life, I'd tell to your face exactly the same things I'm saying here.

The reason for remaining anonymous is to avoid the demonstrated propensity of proto-fascists to use their own anonymity to swarm and engage in actual, substantive harassment in an effort to publicly humiliate, intimidate and silence their adversaries with minor issues unrelated to matters of substance.

That it continues to be such an issue with Conservatives is in fact proof that this is true.

Red Tory said...

Aaron — Perhaps this reflect my misunderstanding of “group blogs” but I was under the impression that they generally tend to constitute a like-minded “team effort” and that if one member of that team elects to tackle a certain issue, there’s not a lot of incentive therefore for others to automatically pile on in support as they might just appear redundant. I believe CC has said as much, so I’m just echoing what he said. In the comments that’s okay. In blog posts… it’s kind of annoying and lazy.

Besides, does anyone have a really thorough appreciation of the dynamics involved in that conflict? I suspect there’s a whole lot we don’t fully understand about it. Kind of pointless to reflexively opine out of ignorance, isn’t it? Not that it stops most bloggers, of course…

Red Tory said...

LS — You really are quite surprisingly conspiratorial in your thinking at times. Don’t you believe in the possibility of coincidence? Or “serendipity” for that matter…

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

¨
ALW, there are lots of reasons for anonimity. Look at Superman.

Okay, whoa, whoa, stop. I didn't mean look at him that way.

I mean just consider his situation, as an example.

Red Tory said...

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ — LOL. You're inspired today.

LuLu said...

Since Aaron has now proclaimed that all pseudonymous bloggers are, in fact, cowards I'm curious to see if he intends to repeat that charge on all of the pseudonymous BT blogs.

And btw, Aaron, it's actually pseudonymous not anonymous. Try here if you're confused by the terms.

ALW said...

Sigh. Now I remember why I stopped coming here for awhile.

Congratulations, you all win. I'm out.

pretty shaved ape said...

"And LuLu, you can dance around the cowardice that is your anonymity all you want, but it's still cowardice, pure and simple."

hi aaron. let me address you without my pseudonym, lindsay stewart thinks that you are a sniveling prig. how dare you start calling people cowards for deciding that they would rather not be placed at personal risk by exposing their identities on a blog. here at canadian cynic, we have an actual bounty on the identity of CC. now ask yourself, aaron, if one of your ideological bedmates is willing to post a $750 bounty, for a name, what the intentions of that person and his pals might be.

i and red tory get to experience incessant attempts at bullying by a right wing, lard assed twit, who waves our names about like some kind of talismans. now the simple fact is that i have less to lose by being exposed. i work in the arts sector and in the service industry. calling you a pathetic fuck will not impact my employment. i don't have kids or a spouse to be concerned for.

it is just fine for you to flounce around waving your hankie and denouncing others for being cowards and saying swears. but then you don't have a strong enough opinion to worry about upsetting the reactionary, jackboot elements that characterize far right extremists. there are no campaigns and certainly no bounties for outing the identities of pseudonymous right wing bloggers. we aren't like that.

you want to call folks cowards, whatever, go write a post that goes against the grain, that challenges, that upsets or angers the kinds of mouth breathing cretins that dwell on your side of the ideological fence. then come back and tell us all how fucking brave you are. and in the mean time you intellectually dishonest dink, look at your cohorts on the bt roll. how many of them are calling out china or mexico, at this moment, not a fucking mention on the front page. nothing. now fuck off, like a good little fella.

Ti-Guy said...

Congratulations, you all win. I'm out.

Was it the pile-on? Or the fact that we didn't all sit quietly while you lectured us?

That's a very disturbing trend among the young these days. The tendency to hector and badger. It didn't work when their parents did it; what makes them think it'll work with anyone else?

ALW said...

There's just nothing left for me to say. Nothing. I can't say anything without immediately being called fifty insults.

I don't suppose, lindsay, you think its not fair for me to call anyone a coward, but it's perfectly OK for you to call me whatever you want. That's consistency for ya.

I'm not even allowed to ever defend myself. I'm just supposed to agree with everything everyone says here, all the time, or I can just fuck off. So I guess I'll do just that.

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

Aaron, if you're offended by the language, that's fine.

Why not say, "well, I agree with your sentiment, but wouldn't put it that way."

Or maybe "I don't think you're being fair to Guergis. After all, ...[your argument here]."

If all that you attack is the language, you're really only about one rung up from pointing out typos or grammatical errors.

I'd personally rather be told to fuck off (or preferably that I'm a dumb cocksucker) than to have someone suggest to me without cussing that maybe the residential schools should be re-opened, or that because I ask questions that you don't like to address I must more concerned with the well-being of the Taliban than I am with that of Canadian troops, or that it might be hilarious to wear little HotWheels bulldozers around our necks to celebrate the death of Rachel Corrie 5 years ago. I could go on and on with this crap. Widows of men who died in the 9/11 attacks are enjoying their husbands' deaths.

That's the stuff that makes me feel sick. Not dirty words.

Does that make any sense?

LuLu said...

Aaron, you came in here looking for a fight and, now that you've gotten one, you're taking your ball and you're going home. Grow up. Seriously. This isn't the first time you've done this and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Why don't you try surprising everyone (like me, for example) and dealing with the topic at hand instead of trying to hijack the post with your complaints about bad language and the lack of civil discourse.

ALW said...

Crabgrass - you know what? It does make sense. But once, just once, I'd like to hear a mea culpa. Something like "yeah, that was unnecessarily harsh" or "maybe that was over the line". Instead, all I ever hear in response to any complaint is "well you guys are way worse". See this very thread for example. Is there any response at all to any of my concerns, except to immediately point to what the people on "my side" are saying or doing? There's always the implication that if "called out" people on "my side" and then came here, everyone would say "oh, geez, he's right". Sure.

ALW said...

Lulu - a fight over whether or not using the c-word is perhaps unnecessarily harsh?

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

For what it's worth, I'm sure it would all go much more nicely if we met over beers.

Okay, perhaps something stronger. Anyway, you get the idea.

God, but I'm a class act

ALW said...

Here's the big irony. It's that quite often, as a libertarian-minded person, I agree with the substance of what's said here. But it's always buried under so much vulgarity and sheer hatred, who wants to be associated with it?

liberal supporter said...

I'm not even allowed to ever defend myself. I'm just supposed to agree with everything everyone says here, all the time
Typical passive aggressive attack.

buried under so much vulgarity
perhaps, in your view

and sheer hatred
no, that is typical conflation

who wants to be associated with it?
You do.

If you believe that nobody will take this place seriously, due to anonymity and swearing, then why come here? Is it so that other people will know that anonymity and swearing are bad? Why do you insult people by having to tell them how bad it is here? Can others not make up their own minds?

pretty shaved ape said...

aaron, you are welcome to defend yourself. and since this is the home of incivility and all, we'll likely tell you to do naughty things with your mommy and daddy parts. but you've waltzed on over here, ignored the issue at hand and dredged up the undying cussing gambit. it isn't a mystery that we use strong language. you know it. yet you come and act horrified and then you get sniffy when you're told to shove it. i'm sorry, i can't help you to get beyond that.

right or wrong, we're going to take positions that we feel we can support with or without the language problem. you don't have to subject yourself to our scurrilous words. there's a whole world of safe and content free blogging to dull yourself with. as far as being offensive, don't start calling anyone here cowards. my co-bloggers aren't obliged to expose their lives to miscreants like evans for your satisfaction. you want to take on someone being offensive, go after the cat who directs traffic to namble and stormfront, go after the guy who puts a stalking bounty on people's identities. show me you're not a coward before waving that sort of charge about.

frank said...

liberal supporter says "Except the CPC claimed they would do thing differently. They claimed the moral high ground."
So please tell me then how your beloved Liberals didn't act in a moral way when dealing with William Sampson? Could it be the "moral" actions of your Liberals that Mr. Sampson was so critical about? Do you even remember those press conferences, liberal supporter, when William Sampson all but tore the Liberals a new one? I know, I know, you were probably writing some new election strategy for Team Paul Martin.

Ti-Guy said...

There's just nothing left for me to say. Nothing. I can't say anything without immediately being called fifty insults.

There are a number of misconceptions here. First, you were hardly insulted and nowhere near immediately; it took a while before someone called you a fascist and someone else called you a prig. Harsh tone isn't the same as insult.

Second, I think you over-identify with other Conservatives in a way that seems odd for a libertarian. You take the invective personally.

LuLu said...

But it's always buried under so much vulgarity and sheer hatred, who wants to be associated with it?

You're kidding, right? As Crabby said, I'll take foul-mouthed, honest blogging over the vicious, racist hatemongering at SDA, Five Feet of Fury, and the Halls of Macademia to name just a few.

You know Aaron, it's obvious from your comments and your blog that you're not a stupid person. Is there a particular reason why you're doing such an excellent impression of one right now?

liberal supporter said...

frank, William Sampson was freed. It took longer than it should have. But they did not shriek unofficially that he is getting what he deserves and officially that they can do nothing, and then suddenly turn around when the story hits the media. They worked on his case as standard procedure. Unlike today when it takes a media circus to get action, and when the likes of Stockwell Day make doing nothing the standard procedure.

What is your point? Your people are uncaring selfish and hateful. All the other parties care about what happens to other people. Yours does not, and its supporters are gleeful over other peoples' misfortune.

KEvron said...

"your total failure to write several posts about Beijing’s recent repressions of Tibet"

take a look around, aaron; it's canadian cynic.

KEvron

Frank Frink said...

Here ya' go, Aaron.

And over here, too.

Yep, there's your caring, moral, always do the right thing and never ever wrong party.

Now, please go and gently, kindly, civilly fuck yourself.

pretty shaved ape said...

william sampson tried to abet the escape from lawful authority of a bootlegger. sampson was involved with people that routinely ran afoul of the law. when my ex's parents went to work in riyadh, they gave up drinking at home and stayed away from the illicit parties and clubs. sampson had been charged with crimes, had access to legal and consular counsel and was visited by family. was justice as we know it served? no. by canadian standards saudi justice is a travesty of theological and political confusion. still. sampson fared better than the prisoners at gitmo. everyone that is allowed to enter saudi territory to work knows the laws of the land as regards socially accepted behaviour and the prohibition on drink. ignorance not only isn't a defense, it isn't true.

did canadians support sampson in his plight? yup. the ambassador to saudi arabia visited him in prison with his lawyer. was it a full and enthusiastic defense? not according to sampson. but he was under suspicion of terrorism causing death as well as sundry other crimes and he did get sprung. so brenda martin languishes, ignored by a conservative government that only deigns to help when the pressure mounts and the media notices.

no one believes that sampson was a terrorist car bomber. but he was a criminal and he did behave like an ignorant bastard. booze is illegal in saudi arabia the same way crack is illegal here. he flouted the law, consorted with illicit drinks dealers and tried to help a booze pusher escape the country. he wasn't exactly an innocent vicitm. in prison he caused all manner of problems for himself, was non-cooperative and hostile to the point of insulting mohammed.

he spent two and a half years in the can under harsh circumstances. that's a shitty deal and he's been legally afforded the right to sue his captors by a british court. best of luck to him.

frank said...

liberal supporter, any proof of this unofficial shrieking that you talk about or is this something that's in your head. Do you even know how long Mr. Sampson was locked up and tortured before he was finally freed(mostly because of British action)??? I can give you a hint if you like...psst it was 31 months...that's 2 whole years and 7 months. If the CPC can do nothing, why are they sending over another Cabinet Minister for the third time to try and do something for this poor woman.
PSA, in other words Mr.Sampson got what he damn well deserved and, well gosh darn it, our brave Liberal Government did all they possibly could. Brenda Martin on the other hand is a poor,poor,poor soul who ,bless her innocent heart, through no fault of her own whatsoever, was locked up and there is not a goddamned thing this EVILBUSHITLEREPUBLICANWARMONGERBABYEATINGHARPERFATTY Government is willing to do. Alrighty then.

LuLu said...

EVILBUSHITLEREPUBLICANWARMONGER BABYEATINGHARPERFATTY

Hilarious. Frank, I think you need to relax.

Ti-Guy said...

EVILBUSHITLEREPUBLICANWARMONGERBABYEATINGHARPERFATTY

I like this. I'm going to credit Fwank whenever I use it.

I think only the "baby eating" can be described as hyperbole. The rest is simply factual.

Red Tory said...

Aaron — Just for the record, I didn't insult you. Also, I think your "fifty insults" might be a tad hyperbolic by a magnitude of ten (an approximation, I'll admit).

liberal supporter said...

Frank repeats what others say (slightly twisted of course) and then claims that it is his view and then demands you defend some strawman he erects.

I guess their regulars are on break and the second string is being sent over today. My garage door opener is better at changing channels than he is.

Red Tory said...

I wonder if we can get CC & Co. to incorporate EVILBUSHITLEREPUBLICANWARMONGERBABYEATINGHARPERFATTY® into the title of one of their upcoming posts... (hint, hint)

frank said...

RT, you can be sure they're working on it at this very second.
liberal supporter,
1. You don't own a garage door opener, your parents own it.
2. Please let me in on this "unofficial shrieking". When/where did the Canadian Government say "let Martin rot."and no I'm not talking about the Chretien govt. to Paul Martin either.
3. I can't possibly twist your twisted theories anymore than they already are, trust me! Besides, you come up with some absolute comic gold.

frank said...

comedic gold, I meant comedic gold.
lulu,
It is kinda funny when you look at it, no? Perhaps you should take a look at some other parodies of yourselves and ask: Do we really look that dumb?
Actually, who's kidding who? Like that's gonna happen!!!

Ti-Guy said...

Perhaps you should take a look at some other parodies of yourselves

What parodies? Conservatives don't do parody. They just point (usually at the misfortune of others) and make that cackly "bwahahaha" noise that they think is laughter.

LuLu said...

Perhaps you should take a look at some other parodies of yourselves and ask: Do we really look that dumb?

You first, Frank.

liberal supporter said...

1. You don't own a garage door opener, your parents own it.
Normally I ignore this kind of insult, but for alw's sake, I am reproducing it to show I saw it. alw needs to learn to ignore the superfluous (such as swearing) and simply deal with the substance.

2. Please let me in on this "unofficial shrieking".
Bloggers hunter and wilson are the ones I was thinking of.

When/where did the Canadian Government say "let Martin rot."and no I'm not talking about the Chretien govt. to Paul Martin either.
I made no claim the Government did, that is why I said "unofficial", i.e. through BTs. But you're welcome for the opportunity for your second gratuitous Paul Martin bash.

3. I can't possibly twist your twisted theories anymore than they already are, trust me! Besides, you come up with some absolute comic gold.
Again, pedestrian attempts at sneering insults. (Yawn).ALW, are you paying attention? Notice I am not screaming about frank's incivility, I am laughing at it.

KEvron said...

"Perhaps you should take a look at some other parodies of yourselves"

done and done!

KEvron

Adam C said...

Geez, Kev, you've got some classy enemies there...

Somena Woman said...

This whole line of BS by ALW reminded me of a true story concerning the Trials at Nuremburg. Pace Godwin Law invocees. The story makes a very interesting point about manners and "civility". I forget which Nazi official was involved but basically while the man shrugged off the mass-murder of tens of thousands of jews without a moment of regret or upset on the basis that he felt justified for what he did because was only "following orders", he was however deeply mortified and embarrassed that he had failed to stand up at the correct time when he was supposed in order to hear the verdict against him being rendered.

No, I am not claiming that those who complain about the lack of civility of various bloggers are nazis. I am however pointing out that people who complain about the lack of civility because somebody uses "the c word" is bizarre when those same people think nothing of comments that evoke racial hatred towards identifiable groups of people are commonly made.

That's part of why CC and fans regularly tell people who regularly complain about "lack of civility" to piss off.

It's simple. When you are confronted with atrociously evil behavior and propositions by people, the ONLY civil response IS to tell those people to FUCK RIGHT OFF. It would be uncivil to NOT do so.

Somena Woman said...

Dear ALW,

Just a quick question... Which do you consider more "uncivil"... calling somebody a "c-word" or making a joke using Holocaust serial numbers as a prop in that Joke?

Just wonderin'.

CC said...

I would ask Aaron a more direct question. What does he consider more uncivil: rude language, or blatant dishonesty? It's not a tough question. Pick one.