UGH. What a crew of asslickers over there.
Why, for instance is the word “ex-MP” in the title since Mr. Jaffer is not a Conservative MP at the moment and hasn’t been for some time? And, why does Donovan go into great detail about the Guergis PEI airport episode when it had nothing to do with the article? And, then there is the comment about busty blondes. What is he trying to imply?Apparently there are such things as stupid questions.
"Why, for instance is the word “ex-MP” in the title since Mr. Jaffer is not a Conservative MP at the moment and hasn’t been for some time?..."And yet, if you read on, The Toronto Star article does mention that Jaffer is *still* handing out his old MP cards.Teh stoopid. It burns.
"“Last night I woke up in excruciating pain and my feet were the size of busty blonde hookers, I was screaming like Guergis at the Charlottetown airport when I had to take my boots off. I don't know what it is - but I haven't moved at all,” Gillani wrote in one cancellation email."BTW, 'ex-M.P.' is a compound word. It means: has not been an MP since he lost an election in 2008orused to be an M.P. but not anymoreorwas an M.P. in the past but not longer retains that status, former, formerly was, no longer isI sent him an email, hopefully that will clear things up a bit.LOL, I remember when Sandy had such a tough time with the whole Prince debaucle...mikmik
Oh my God, she is actually defending these scumbags! This comment over there is my favourite:LyndaApril 8, 2010 at 1:11 pmI live in Helena’s riding and I have never been disappointed by voting for her. She is a very good M.P. No one has published her good works in the riding and in her position.There must be a way to stop The Star–all of what they say is heresay.P.S. I do not work for her."heresay" what?Love how she throws in she doesn't work for her. Because qualifying yourself is essential when you choose to support a scumbag.
"There must be a way to stop The Star–all of what they say is heresay."Huh. That whole "freedom of speech" thing didn't last long, did it?
How Cons think:Criminality/scumbaggery are determined not by one's actions or deeds but political and religious persuasions. As long as one is loyally Conservative or Christian/Catholic, one can be a cocaine snorting, con-man befriending, drunk driver and/or altar boy ass raper. At least, this is how I'm reading Sandy et al.
It was one of the more poignant scenes in West Wing--when a republican was going to go after leo for his previous valium/booze addiction, another republican stopped him--'see this? this right here is why they hate us... we have to be better than that...'Alas, that never happens in the real world.
"No one has published her good works in the riding and in her position."Actually, as I recall that was precisely the problem. Of course, there IS a perfectly good explanation: Her assistant accidentally tripped and stumbled onto a keyboard, purely coincidentally unleashing a torrent of bootlicking which somehow addressed itself to the local rag and sent itself under the assistant's maiden name.
The thing I find most amusing is how the G&M has suddenly rehabilitated itself in Sandy's eyes. When I was discussing the Harper is great thing with her earlier this week, the Globe articles I cited about how Flaherty and Harper introduced subprime lending to Canada just as soon as they won in '06 were Liberal Spin, but now they're saints for reporting on the behind the scenes of Adscam.
Post a Comment