Once upon a time, I suggested that Canada's wingnuts pick a position and stick with it. One of:
- No one was tortured, or
- Sure they were tortured, but who cares?
Apparently, Blogging Tory Walker Morrow has moved on comfortably to phase two:
This is just getting ridiculous
My latest for the Libertas Post blog, talking about the Afghan detainees 'scandal', and the Tories' absolutely idiotic and childish response to what should be a relatively nothing issue.
Predicting how these people will react has become so little of a challenge, I'm actually thinking of trying to guess the words they'll use. At least there would be some sport in that.
33 comments:
Uh huh.
What an idiotic comment, even for an idiot:
"This is a witchhunt and the opposition AH's could give a RA about CHRISTMAS."
I think that the "Libertaspost" blog is but one big joke.
Gerry claims: "The Libertas Post provides a strong, principled, non-partisan voice for Canadians"...
Great marketing until you start to read the post and look at the blogroll...
dr roy, Ezra, Five Feet of bitterness, Gayandstupid, Rondi I'm so stupid, Small Dead Animals, and Ralphie that's not my name....
All the usual right-wing idiots are there....
Libertaspost has no credibility and only deserve to be mocked.
Gerry is nothing more than a right-wing apologist and hardly a non-partisan thinker...
Gerry should be mocked for claiming to be non-partisan while just being another douchenozzle...
And yes, I realize that this is about Walker Morrow post but since he decided to hitch is trailer with that lot, I can assume that he's not worth the time to read... I expect a bunch of half-truths and faulty arguments...
Uh huh.
Ooooh ... such slashing wit! Such cutting commentary! How will we ever recover from such a crushing blow?
No, really.
Per Walker:
Indeed, one wonders whether our lefty friends really want to go down this road, considering that it's rather hard to accuse someone of being a populist and anti-democratic at the same time.
Wow. I wonder just what he thinks all of those references to "people" and Volk are in aid of when it comes to anti-democratic regimes?
Lulu - Wow. Even for you an 'I'm sooo scared' comment is rather childish.
Cherniak - don't you find that ignoring what I have to say because of your assumptions regarding the LP to be, well, a rather 'faulty argument', to use your terms? Just askin'
Sooey - umm...that wasn't my comment. It was a commenter's.
Ti-Guy - duly noted, and on the face of it, you would be right. I just tend to think of populism as an overdose of pandering to 'the people', which is anti-democratic in its own right. But not in the sense that the Tories are being accused of at this moment. Perhaps I should have rephrased that sentence to read 'it's rather hard to accuse someone of populism and not listening to the people at the same time', or suchlike.
Perhaps I should have rephrased that sentence to read 'it's rather hard to accuse someone of populism and not listening to the people at the same time.
Here's a thought: Why don't you cite some specific and noteworthy critic(s) on the non-Right and then examine that criticism for validity? Because, now I don't know what you're talking about.
That the actions of the Harpies are anti-democratic is hard to dispute, but if you're going to, then I would suggest you try to do so persuasively.
Ti-Guy - For starters: http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2009/12/nad-snapping-irony-of-it-all.html
Also, you might notice that I don't cite all of those on the Non-Right - just some, as in the example above.
That the actions of the Harpies are anti-democratic is hard to dispute
Is it? Undemocratic is a very hefty word to be throwing around, and like I said in the blog-post, there's a difference between being difficult and being undemocratic.
But no matter - I'm not trying to defend the Tories, here. I'll be the first one to say that I think they've handled the Afghan detainees scandal quite badly.
Walter, before passing judgment, I did visit your blog. All I saw were the same regurgitated Connie talking points with a better vocabulary.
As for Libertas, there is an irony of claiming to be neutral yet seem to parrot whatever Conservative message of the moment seems to be.
there's a difference between being difficult and being undemocratic
So subverting and bending most laws and spirit of parliament is simply "being difficult"....
Little Harper's big Afghanistan adventure is a joke. I'm amused by the fact Conservative say torture is nothing but are the first to cry when a soldier comes back in a body bag.... Let's face, you join the army, you may die. So if torturing and killing innocent Afghanis is acceptable to you, you'll have no problem with the blowback, right?
There is a relativism inherent to Conservatives that border on a sort of mental illness.
Walter, before passing judgment, I did visit your blog. All I saw were the same regurgitated Connie talking points with a better vocabulary.
Thanks, I guess.
So subverting and bending most laws and spirit of parliament is simply "being difficult"....
Meh. Same game, different party name. Why act surprised?
Little Harper's big Afghanistan adventure is a joke. I'm amused by the fact Conservative say torture is nothing but are the first to cry when a soldier comes back in a body bag.... Let's face, you join the army, you may die. So if torturing and killing innocent Afghanis is acceptable to you, you'll have no problem with the blowback, right?
There's a difference between a Canadian soldier being killed, and a Taliban soldier being handed over to his own government for rough treatment. From where I'm standing, you're the one being relativistic right now.
A caveat - I'm not defending torture, necessarily. I'm just saying that right now, what happened to a few Taliban soldiers three years ago in an Afghan prison isn't too high on my priority list. The Tories' mishandling of this scandal, for instance, being of slightly higher priority.
Ti-Guy - For starters: http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2009/12/nad-snapping-irony-of-it-all.html
Starters for what? What's that link supposed to be in response to?
Undemocratic is a very hefty word to be throwing around, and like I said in the blog-post, there's a difference between being difficult and being undemocratic.
And what is that difference, exactly?
I'm not trying to defend the Tories, here. I'll be the first one to say that I think they've handled the Afghan detainees scandal quite badly.
Well, you could have done that without wagging your finger and clucking your tongue at the Opposition.
There's a difference between a Canadian soldier being killed, and a Taliban soldier being handed over to his own government for rough treatment.
If you send a soldier to go "fight", there is a chance that he may die is whatever adventure he's been sent. He has no say it it and if he comes back in a pine box, so be it.
If we are in Afghanistan to "liberate" and "democratize", then yes, we are responsible for the treatment. The Harper excuse of "we are giving them to their government" is a joke. But then again, torture by proxy seems acceptable to right-winger: you would never want to take responsibility for your fuck-ups right? The mayor of Kabul is closer to a placed dictator than a functioning government - he would not be there is not for the grace of nations such as the U.S. and Canada.
So being an enabler somehow makes it acceptable?
Ti-Guy - Well, you could have done that without wagging your finger and clucking your tongue at the Opposition.
I could have, but I didn't. Where'd be the fun in that?
Starters for what? What's that link supposed to be in response to?.
The comment that you left just above mine. I guess I didn't make that clear enough; my bad.
And what is that difference, exactly?
The difference between being difficult and being undemocratic should be obvious. Every government is difficult. Every government tries to bend the rules. The Tories are no exception to this - to make them undemocratic makes, well, practically every government in existence democratic ( although to be fair, democracy is hardly the rule in many countries ).
Cherniak - I honestly have no response to that.
Er - I meant 'to make them undemocratic makes, well, practically every government in existence undemocratic'. Damn typos.
Well that's 30 seconds I'll never get back.
Wow - whiny much, Ti-Guy?
Shorter Walker: Everyone does it and everything's the same. In addition, I am the most smartest person in the World. So, nyah.
Were you home schooled, by any chance?
Were you home schooled, by any chance?
Either that, or a product of private school like dr roy...
Ti-Guy - I'm sorry if my trying to engage in a conversation with you has put you off. Perhaps you're simply not used to the idea of a conversation without an echo chamber.
At any rate, those details about my life have no bearing in this conversation, which is now over, due to the fact that you're starting to sound like a spoiled thirteen-year-old girl who hasn't gotten her way.
Perhaps you're simply not used to the idea of a conversation without an echo chamber.
I'm unused to conservations with people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who are in a constant state of confusion as to what constitute matters of fact versus opinion.
Remember: My original bone of contention was your assertion that it was absurd to accuse the Harper government of being anti-democratic; an assertion which the prorogation of Parliament (to name just one specific event) to avoid a confidence vote would suggest is not merely just false, but quite frankly irrational.
Either that, or a product of private school like dr roy...
Well, I wouldn't go that far. And who knows? Maybe Walker went to a good private school, like University of Toronto Schools?
*chortle*
I assume you mean the prorogue this spring, and not the one that's being hinted at right now?
Perhaps I would be more shocked by that action if it hadn't been done before - by the Liberals. See above re: same tricks, different Parties.
Also see above re: difficult vs. undemocratic. The argument that the Tories were being undemocratic by proroguing this spring might hold water if the GG hadn't signed off on it as well. It's sort of like arguing that forming the Coalition to begin with was undemocratic: it wasn't; it was just kind of shifty, like the proroguing, arguably ( depending who you're cheering for ) was. And I never said that the Tories weren't shifty - in fact, I think I implied it here or there.
I'm unused to conservations with people who have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and who are in a constant state of confusion as to what constitute matters of fact versus opinion.
What was it that somebody said about glass houses, long ago?...
I assume you mean the prorogue this spring, and not the one that's being hinted at right now?
Spring? It was December, 2008. And when did the Liberals prorogue Parliament to avoid a confidence vote?
Are you high? You're high aren't you. Don't lie.
Perhaps I would be more shocked by that action if it hadn't been done before - by the Liberals. See above re: same tricks, different Parties.
I'm assuming that you are talking about a prorogation by the Liberals. So please tell me when this happened...
The Conservatives asked for a prorogation because they were facing a confidence that they were going to loose...
I have the feeling that Conservative will just invent "facts" to try and augment weak arguments...
Oh - my bad. I must have confused the proroguing this *December ( fucking all blurs together after a while ), with the dissolving of Parliament by Martin, for the purposes of an election, 'round about when AdScam hit the Liberal Party.
Sorry about that - would you say two punches to the arm is appropriate punishment? Or do you think an Indian Burn is called for at this point?
At any rate, the GG did sign off on Harper's scrabble to prorogue and put off a confidence motion. That makes me think it wasn't such an undemocratic move.
Sigh...I wish I was high.
*Sigh*. I see Twatsy is once again bored with having only three readers at his place so he has to drop by to try to attract some new ones from here.
Somehow, the word "pathetic" seems inadequate.
with the dissolving of Parliament by Martin, for the purposes of an election, 'round about when AdScam hit the Liberal Party.
If you're talking about the 2006 election, he didn't simply ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. The Opposition moved for a vote of non-confidence. Martin allowed that vote to take place.
In retrospect, he shouldn't have. After all, it's perfectly democratic to ask the GG to prorogue instead.
The next time you're passing by, Twatsy ... keep passing.
Post a Comment