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?