by Nath_BC
Jan 20 2009
3:17 PM
How petty and pathetic of you to be so obsessed with lefties and righties, especially on this historic day, when a great man of hope and change takes his rightful place, at a time where disastrous eight years have left the strongest nation on this earth in weakest financial situation, after inheriting surpluses from what you would hatefully call a lefty, but who in reality was a pragmatic is Obama. Bush’s misadventures have costed eleven trillion dollars; most people don’t even know how many zeros are in there. Obama inherits the most challenges any president ever has for decades and would need good will that American people are willing to show, except for the jerks especially at the NP for whom no black man, especially a democrat would ever be good enough. Same here you every day throw crap at Liberals who gave us surpluses after years of deficits and mismanagement of economy. Like Mulroney, Harper once again is ready to hand out big bucks to his greedy and corrupt friends and takes us to deficits, and like fools NP pundits praise him. Is it any wonder the NP’s circulation is declining as is the stock of parent company? If the owners were smart they would bring about a wholesale change and fire all the left over from the Black’s era and bring in long needed new blood. The time for change has come, either change or vanishes, the choice could not be clearer.
The comment is a clear view into a lefties mind, and the intolerance is palatable. Like the protests against Israel by lefties, it shows their mind set. Only Liberal/NDP views count, and those who oppose are treated with disgust. The lefties desire for us to vanish, they are not trying to change our minds or argue points, they just want us to vanish.
We are their conscience, that is why they despise us. They know that swingers clubs are not moral, that abortions are not moral. They don't hate religion, they hate the morals that most religions teach. They know that criminals need to be stopped from harming innocent victims, yet they support terrorist organizations who do just that, why? Because they are focused on vanishing Conservatives, religion and nation states. That's why they love the UN, it seeks to destroy pride in country.
If what I say is not true, why are we not seeing anything about Hamas murdering Fatah Palestinians? but Israel is being accused of war crimes? No balance. Lefties will protest against Israel without looking at both sides. Why doesn't Amnesty International blame Hamas for anything? Maybe we should look into who is funding all these lefty organizations?
Change? Change to lefties is about changing the world into a socialist state and vanishing any voice that does not agree with them.
62 comments:
"The lefties desire for us to vanish, they are not trying to change our minds or argue points, they just want us to vanish."
"We are their conscience, that is why they despise us."
"..they hate the morals that most religions teach.".
The rants and raves of a truly paranoid individual. You cannot refer to people with different opinions without calling them lefties (always with a derogatory inflection). You make bizarre claims without proof, links or backup -- because obviously there is no proof.
Your posts consists of non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, mean spirited remarks, run-on sentences and bad spelling. There are places where this would be a problem, but at the Blogging Tories you fit right in.
But don't worry, your favourite sycophants MaryT and AlbertaGril will be right along.
SQ @ 4:05 am
The word "you" and "your" was used a total of 5 times in the comment at 4:05. That is personal.
The reference by name of 2 posters at this site was specific. That is personal.
The statement referencing, Blogging Tories is the most interesting to me because a Blogger at BT, recently was awarded the "Best Blog Award for 2008". That is international.
I question why posters enter a site, not to discuss but to dismiss the content and context.
To say nothing of the author and those that may contribute respectfully.
I think the statements @4:05 am, answer that nicely, considering the topic this morning.
Have a lovely day.
pal⋅at⋅a⋅ble
n
–adjective
1. acceptable or agreeable to the palate or taste; savory: palatable food.
2. acceptable or agreeable to the mind or feelings: palatable ideas.
pal⋅pa⋅ble
–adjective
1. readily or plainly seen, heard, perceived, etc.; obvious; evident: a palpable lie; palpable absurdity.
2. capable of being touched or felt; tangible.
3. Medicine/Medical. perceptible by palpation.
pssst...Hunter, I think you meant palpable. ROFLMAO!
"But don't worry, your favourite sycophants MaryT and AlbertaGril will be right along."
Too funny SQ, because here you are visiting your "favourite" blog and posting right along with us.
But I guess as with Obama now making "God" cool; "that's different", right.
It is just too funny watching the swooning, adoring Obamaphiles "preach" to those of us who question and point out that he really is just a man and he really is no different than Harper or Bush, he just has a great speech writer. As someone said yesterday, maybe the speech writer should have cut out the middle man and run for the presidency himself. He is really, really good.
Day 2 - will the oceans slow today, SQ?
Oh and SQ - before you start to take on people for their grammar and spelling; you might want to take a gander at your own.
"But don't worry, your favourite sycophants MaryT and AlbertaGril will be right along."
AlbertaGril, SQ.....??????
Funny how the self proclaimed morally superior fall flat on their faces.
Yeh Marty.
AlbertaGril: If you check all of my posts mentioning YOU, I always spell it this way.
ROFLMAO!!!!
and
HAHAHAHAHAHA
"AlbertaGril: If you check all of my posts mentioning YOU, I always spell it this way."
My point, Southern Qebec, my point.
Oh - and that spelling of Qebec was done on purpose.
Re:"...my problem is with the definition of change. I think I found a hint of what the lefties are thinking change is all about. Here is one comment from the National Post, it appears change is getting rid of all Conservatives, bolding mine."
Problem: Hunter of Voters looked at one (1) comment in The National Post instead of the dictionary for her definition. Never mind dealing with the substance of Kelly McParland's article to which the comment refers. What is that article about Hunter of Voters? And what would you say McParland's article demonstrates in the way of tolerance for quote unquote lefties?
Re: "The comment is a clear view into a lefties mind, and the intolerance is palatable."
a (singular) lefties (plural) mind oh surely you meant lefty's mind - or maybe not?
As if.
What Marty said. And also once again I think Hunter might find the dictionary helpful in her choice of words.
Re: "Like the protests against Israel by lefties, it shows their mind set."
Non sequitur and irrelevant, showing nothing.
Re: "Only Liberal/NDP views count, and those who oppose are treated with disgust."
This blog proves Hunter of Voter's statement to be utterly false. Just look at her prior post.
Re:"The lefties desire for us to vanish, they are not trying to change our minds or argue points, they just want us to vanish."
I think you're wrong there Hunter - if you vanished, where would I get my morning chuckle? But seriously - again you need only look at the post previous in your own blog (something about dual citizenship is ok for Cons but not Libs?) to see who is arguing points and who is satisfied with smears and name calling.
Vanish is a nice word though - very magical sounding and I bet that's why you pick up on the commenter's use of it and repeat it so often again yourself here.
Re: "We are their conscience, that is why they despise us."
Two unfounded assumptions in one statement - woo hoo!
Re: " They know that swingers clubs are not moral, that abortions are not moral. They don't hate religion, they hate the morals that most religions teach. They know that criminals need to be stopped from harming innocent victims, yet they support terrorist organizations who do just that, why? Because they are focused on vanishing Conservatives, religion and nation states. That's why they love the UN, it seeks to destroy pride in country."
Hunter do you like drinking bubble tea? This is nothing but more assumptions and nonsense. I do, however, love the idea of "focusing on vanishing" something. Contradiction in terms? Mroooohahahahaha! The letters 'q' and 'u' are what you need. Insert them between van and ishing. Might work! Morals? Non sequitur, non sequitur be darned; grasp the language, Sister.
Re: "If what I say is not true, why are we not seeing anything about Hamas murdering Fatah Palestinians? but Israel is being accused of war crimes? No balance. Lefties will protest against Israel without looking at both sides. Why doesn't Amnesty International blame Hamas for anything? Maybe we should look into who is funding all these lefty organizations?"
If we could find coherency in Hunter's post, we might also find truth. Inform yourself beyond Levant and The Post if you want balance!
Re: "Change? Change to lefties is about changing the world into a socialist state and vanishing any voice that does not agree with them."
You miss the point Hunter but for that you would have to scroll the comments a little more carefully than you have done and you would come to this one from Advokat:
"... when was the last time that you heard any US politician recognize christians, muslims, jews, hindus and NON-BELIEVERS in the same sentence?!?"
Change indeed.
Hunter -- Derangement We Can Believe In!
"when was the last time that you heard any US politician recognize christians, muslims, jews, hindus and NON-BELIEVERS in the same sentence?!?"
Actually he didn't - his speech writer put those words into his speech.
By the way - did any of you anti-Israeli people happen to read the letter I posted from an Israeli on Hunter's post about the Gaza conflict.
Maybe by hearing what has been happening on the ground in Israel,you might have a bit of sympathy for those who have had to put up with rockets being fired into their midst for years.
And back to this post - you didn't read quite far enough into those comments because you missed these gems of hypocrisy.
“There’s no concern that Obama is going to shove his religion down everyone’s throat like there is with conservatives who do try to shove their religion down everyone’s throat.” R. McLelland
“When Barak Obama says “God bless America” he is speaking from a perspective of the Religious Left, which interprets “God” and “faith” much differently from Mr. Bush. The Left’s gospel is one of social justice, concern for the poor, peacemaking rather than war-making, mercy rather than punishment, inclusion rather than exclusion. Understanding this, the so-called Left (whether religious or not), has no problem with Mr. Obama’s inauguration address, nor does it have a problem saying “Amen!” to it.” Michael Pilgrim
“It doesn’t bother me at all that Obama mentioned God in his inaugural speech. It’s the yacky, tacky American way to do so, and why should he change it?
I remember how every second sentence from the knuckle-dragger Bush used to contain the phrase “God bless America!” and I always thought those with religion might have responded “God help the Americans, for they chose that Barabbas, and on their heads be it!”
It seems the fact that President Obama left out the usual rant about Islam and spoke respectfully about Hindus and non-believers is making the rightwing nutbars a lot more ballistic than his references to God are bothering the likes of me.” fogey
Ah yes - that must be the definition of "change" Obama was speaking of; the ability to say "that's different" and "it's a good thing" when someone on the left does it, but scream knuckledragger or bush lover or neo-con when a politician on the right does it.
Yes - change you really can believe in, right!.
So - when are the oceans going to slow and the planet begin to heal, that's my question.
After all - it only took God seven days.
Why doesn't Amnesty International blame Hamas for anything?
They do
And again
And again
You guys are hilarious today! Only your folks are calling Obama the messiah. Only your folks are tittering about "lefties' heads exploding because Obama mentioned God".
The problem is not in mentioning God. The problem is when you claim God spoke to you personally and gave you a message that the rest of us are expected to treat as Gospel. Recall GWB's answer to why he ran for President.
"The problem is when you claim God spoke to you personally and gave you a message that the rest of us are expected to treat as Gospel."
Since you are providing "links", please give us a link to that asinine statement.
I chuckled when I heard him refer to non-believers. I was with my boss - a very nice guy and a terrific boss who does not believe in God. Well, at least the speech-writer included them which I found amusing.
Oh and LS - of course it is only the right calling Obama the messiah....the stars in the leftie's eyes have blinded them to the fact that he is a mortal man and his words have given us lots of fodder for our definition.
"the oceans will slow"
"the planet will begin to heal"
Puleeeze LS, tell me how those words are not channeling a god like mentality.
You forgot to include your own contribution to that comment thred ABG:
" So the swooning left is already trying to tell us how "different" it is because it is their choice of leader saying it."
What pray tell is the swooning left?
"Some are even trying to say that he means something different."
Uh huh. Great sentence, powerfully written.
"I wonder how "God Bless" is different when a right wing leader says it than when a left wing leader does?"
Might apply if it could be reasonably proven that Obama was a left winger!
"Then we have Fogey trying to tell us that the right was upset that Obama didn't "rant" (was that what he said??" about Islam."
Your point?
"The adoration and rapture with which many are lauding on Obama is what is truly scary."
What scares you about these things?
"I truly do wish the man well because no mortal man can ever live up to the hype and the expectations placed on him by an over the top media and a swooning "but that's different" public."
Get over it. Next.
thread
"Well, at least the speech-writer included them which I found amusing."
That is the thing EoE....his words are not his own. They are flowery apple pie and motherhood words designed to capture the hearts and minds of the listener.
Of course what he is saying is what we all want - I want it...how wonderful if one man could acheive all that.
But that's the point - he is only a man....the expectations that somehow the world tilted on it's axis yesterday because one man became president is ludicrious. Given the fawning and adoration heaped on him tells me that he has created a persona that he is the one who can change the world - which given the meaning of "messiah" says to me that many look to Obama as being able to do things that are impossible for man to do.
"Messiah (Hebrew: מֹשִׁיַּח, Standard Mošíaḥ Tiberian Māšîªḥ; Aramaic: משיחא, Aramaic/Syriac: ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ, Məšîḥā; Arabic: المسيح, Arabic: ʘᶀᾳ𐅕ɑ, al-Masīḥ) literally means "anointed (one)".
That is the point that is being missed.
Those Obama-philes believe that those of us who question this somehow hate him, or are being mean spirited when it is nothing more than us pointing out the hypocrisy of watching a man saying the right words and then saying those words are OK now but were not OK on Monday.
Yesterday I was lead to a link where many celebrities were doing an "I pledge" video - the question was - where were these same celebrities after 9/11 when America was attacked.
Hypocrisy, people, hypocrisy.
We know what a messiah is.
What is the swooning left?
Obama wasn't anointed, he was elected BTW
"Obama wasn't anointed, he was elected BTW"
After being annointed by a media that did not treat him the same as they treated his opposition. When you vilify one candidate and present the other as able to walk on water - that it annointing.
Swooning left.
That would be the media giddily laughing whenever anything Obama happened to come up (eg. Kevin Newman on Global National on Monday night); celebrities pledging to stop world hunger; to support Obama;
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/breitbart/2009/01/19/where-were-you-celebrities-after-911/
to stop child poverty. (yeah, that's gonna happen - maybe they could give some of their earnings to the cause; otherwise it is just words).
Swooning - because it is generally the left that seems to be in love with Obama - of course there are many on the right as well, however it is the Bush Haters and Harper Haters (CBC?) who have been breathlessly and lustfully waiting with anticipation for yesterday.
I also love how the REAL POINT and coolest thing - that America now has a black president is somehow not mentioned in a post called What Is Change?
"I also love how the REAL POINT and coolest thing - that America now has a black president is somehow not mentioned in a post called What Is Change?"
Now THAT is truly inspiring and cool! The history making significance of that IS what should be focused on.!
Something we agree on!
Since you are providing "links", please give us a link to that asinine statement.
You had to look up the spelling of "asinine", so do your own research. Go look up GWB saying God told him to run for President.
Oh and LS - of course it is only the right calling Obama the messiah....
Glad you agree.
the stars in the leftie's eyes have blinded them to the fact that he is a mortal man and his words have given us lots of fodder for our definition.
Links?
"the oceans will slow"
"the planet will begin to heal"
Puleeeze LS, tell me how those words are not channeling a god like mentality.
Links? And not fright wingers putting words in other peoples' mouths.
That is your strategy these days, isn't it? Putting words in other peoples' mouths. Not too different than concern trolling. But most entertaining to see you've got nothing else.
Sing thanks and praises!
I'm waiting to see the Sunday school hymns being revised by the fright wingers but purported to be from their stereotypical loony lefties, in the fright wing's tireless "obamamessiah" campaign.
Something like "Barack loves me, this I know..."
Re: "(yeah, that's gonna happen - maybe they could give some of their earnings to the cause; otherwise it is just words)"
Obama has an answer for you ABG
"And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can."
If you need a link for that one - you are way out of your depth. Hint, don't look under David Frum speech writer.
Oh and don't look under Owen Lippert speech writer either.
Oh LS - surely you jest
"Links? And not fright wingers putting words in other peoples' mouths"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912VD200&show_article=1
" America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. "
Oh - and I did provide "links" so go look them up.
this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal
Oh I see, he was talking about now the US will start doing something about climate change. Doesn't he want to invest in green technologies? That would help the economy too.
Doesn't sound quite like the messianic stuff you were trying to imply with the sound bite though. You made it sound like Luke 19:40, where Jesus said the rocks and stones would cry out.
But then, many of your folks try to paint climate change as religion. Can't you come up with new attack material?
Ah yes - LS is now trying to "justify" Obama!
Typical.
Hey, what about me. I'm a total sycophant. I resent you leaving me off the list. And, when did A-Girl become a "gril"?
OMG Hunter. Like, I like...totally, like agree with you. You are the bomb, girl.
Okay, I guess I should explain something - Obama is not black; he is bi-racial. Why is his mother always left out of the equation? She carried him for 9 months, went through x number of hours of labour to bring him into this world. So why is she always ignored? I find that so incredibly disrespectful to her. Where is his father, anyway? From what I understand, he was never in the picture very much but suddenly, he is a black man? Sorry, he's not black. He's bi-racial. And, hopefully in the not too distant future, we'll forget about skin colour and say that the president is the president - not a white president, not a black president, not a Chinese president, not even a female or male president but just a president.
As for lefties having a different God or faith - bullshit. Obama may sound left-wing but I have this distinct feeling that he's a conservative at heart.
As for him being elected - no. His image which was created was elected. For all we know, he could be a super president or he could be a dud. His campaign was well-financed and he has the face, charisma, and smarts to be marketable.
Politics has become a money game - a money game in which the media is used to sway voters. I'm not saying he's a dud but...he is just a man. Plain and simple - just a man.
More proof of the idolatry for Obama.
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/574475
Ah - yes - the day the planet began to heal.....
H/T to Kate
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010578.html
More evidence of idolatry and swooning
"For the next four years, the most powerful man on the planet will be so not because he can affect our lives and world, but because his words can touch our souls. And we've never needed it more"
http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/574451
Oh puleeeze...
EofE: You are incorrect. It was Bush who wasn't elected. He was appointed by the Supreme Court if you remember.
AG: Planet beginning to heal? AT SDA? Your go-to-blog for the knuckle draggers? Sorry, don't click on racist stuff. Someone might use this computer later and wonder what kind of a horrible person would go to SDA.
Well SQ - since you don't want to see how the swooning public left the mall after yesterday's festivities - let me just say that for those who profess that they CARE about the earth; they sure didn't show it yesterday.
Quite the sight, SQ.
But then, you are one of the righteous so you probably will be able to justify why those who profess to care about the earth, those who deride the anti-climate change group as not being aware and calling them deniers, would choose to do the very thing they criticize others for.
Of course, just like Obama evoking God - when the left do it; there is always a reason - when the right do it - it is criticized.
Hypocrites.
SQ - you are taking me literally. I know that he was elected but the point I was trying to make is that our elections are no longer based on merit but on who can outspend the other and who has the flashiest campaign. Running for office is now a game of money and not merit.
However, the American system is somewhat convoluted. In its simplest terms, I interpret their system as one of electing people to vote for us. Anywhere between the people and the end result, there is lots of room for unsavoury tactics and activity. That's why I never really trust the American votes - it really is not a direct system. Here, in Canada, each votes stands on its own.
A-Girl, or should I say GRIL, you bring up a good point. Harper says "God bless Canada" and he's painted as a fire-breathing religious zealot who is going to take away women's rights. Obama mentions God and ooooooh, it's mass euphoria. Hypocrites.
Ah yes - LS is now trying to "justify" Obama!
Typical.
Eh? If your "comment" makes any sense, it escapes me. Please use more care when you cut and paste insults from your copy of "Rickles for Right Wingers". You have to do more than simply replace "hockey puck" with "LS".
Thanks!
And please address my refutation of Hunter's moaning that Amnesty International doesn't denounce Hamas.
Thanks.
the point I was trying to make is that our elections are no longer based on merit but on who can outspend the other and who has the flashiest campaign. Running for office is now a game of money and not merit.
Yes, the good old days. Why again is it that we have this old law that saloons have to be closed on election days?
"Eh? If your "comment" makes any sense, it escapes me. Please use more care when you cut and paste insults from your copy of "Rickles for Right Wingers". You have to do more than simply replace "hockey puck" with "LS".
Thanks!"
Huh?
You make no sense LS
Obama is not black; he is bi-racial.
I consider that as being the final repudiation of the odious "one drop" laws, that said if you have but one drop of Negro blood, you are black.
They don't mention his white heritage because all the previous presidents already had that. Just like they don't call him the first black male President.
Hey SQ - maybe this site is more to your liking
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/01/21/obamas-green-inaugural-turns-national-mall-into-trash-dump/
Re: "Harper says "God bless Canada" and he's painted as a fire-breathing religious zealot who is going to take away women's rights."
Actually it was Harper's last attempt at making a budget for the nation that painted him as a person with an interest in taking away women's rights. That, and his appointment of an individual embroiled in sexual harassment charges to the Senate. Not to mention all his anti-abortion friends that keep popping up and embarrassing him at inconvenient times to say the least.... No, he painted his own picture with his own brush, with no help from heaven on high.
Don Rickles is a comedian who specializes in insults. He will often call someone a "hockey puck".
Your comment appeared to be a cut and paste insult that can be read daily on any number of blogs. I tried to be more creative in responding to you. Sorry if it went over your head.
Your comment that I am "justifying" Obama makes no sense, since any statement made could be called "justifying". What specifically don't you like about my statement? Please be more specific than sneering "typical". Typical of what?
Perhaps you don't like that I am pointing out how you are failing to make the case that Obama is being characterized by everyone (besides the radical right) in Biblical terms?
And please address my refutation of Hunter's moaning that Amnesty International doesn't denounce Hamas.
Thanks.
since you don't want to see how the swooning public left the mall after yesterday's festivities - let me just say that for those who profess that they CARE about the earth; they sure didn't show it yesterday.
Good thing they only have an Inauguration every 4 years.
But I'd rather have that mess every day, than 11 million litres of tailings leaking from the tailings ponds every day.
"Actually it was Harper's last attempt at making a budget for the nation that painted him as a person with an interest in taking away women's rights."
Sigh.....
Once again -you have bought into the spin. You do know that Harper was doing no such thing - he was putting equal pay right where it should be; in the first negotiations.
Google Economic Statement 2008 and go to page 52 - you will find this
"The current approach to pay equity is a litigious, adversarial, complaintsbased
approach. Under the current approach, the Government in its capacity as the employer first agrees on wage rates with the bargaining agents and then years later is forced to top up those very settlements through pay equity
complaints. Since the mid-1980s the federal government has paid over $4 billion in pay equity settlements. New complaints continue to be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, sometimes for the same groups that have already received past pay equity settlements, representing
large potential future costs to taxpayers.
Therefore, the Government will introduce legislation to modernize the pay equity regime for federal public sector employees, similar to the process now in place in Ontario and some other provinces. The new regime reflects the
Government’s commitment to pay equity. The new regime ensures that the employer and bargaining agents are jointly responsible and accountable for negotiating salaries that are fair and equitable to all employees and that are in line with wages in the internal and external workforces.
As a result of the new legislation, pay equity considerations will now be
addressed in a more proactive, open and transparent manner. Making pay equity an integral part of collective bargaining will increase fairness, eliminate lengthy litigation processes and ensure progress made by women
in the public service is maintained over time.
The new pay equity regime will make employee compensation more
predictable, improve government fiscal planning and eliminate unpredictable retroactive payments."
Please tell me where in this he is "taking away women's rights"
LS - that old law was one of the most heinous that could be devised. It is a sad and dark period of our human history. In South Africa, they even went a few steps further - the way a person walked, the curve of a backbone...all sorts of stuff like that. Absolutely disgusting.
I do hope that the media nd the general populace can quickly forget the tone of Obama's skin and begin judging his presidency on merit. As far as I am concerned, way too much has been made of Obama's skin colour. Skin colour has absolutely nothing to do with honesty, ethics, intelligence, or any other quality but the media sure made a meal of it, as did his spin doctors.
I have to ask myself if Obama's mother feels marginalized by all this "first black president" hoopla. I doubt very much if, when she fell in love with Obama's father, that she was conceiving for the sake of producing the "first black president". The sooner his skin colour becomes a non-issue, the better.
"And please address my refutation of Hunter's moaning that Amnesty International doesn't denounce Hamas."
LS - is my name Hunter - sorry I never said they were so don't expect me to jump into that fray.
LS - "But I'd rather have that mess every day, than 11 million litres of tailings leaking from the tailings ponds every day."
Where did you get that info.
11 million litres leak each day
The inaugural garbage is estimated at 130 tons. If it was as heavy as water, it would be 130,000 litres. That is why I'd rather have that, even every day. 100 times less. And they had a million people there.
Forgot to mention, over half of it is already cleaned up, one day later.
Riiiggght LS - CBC and Environmental Action... yeah, now there are some credible sources.
http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=104751
"Virtually everyone close to the tar sands industry knows that all tar sands tailings ponds leak, even the new ones, and that while steps are taken to recapture the leakage, a significant portion of contaminated water still escapes into the environment," the report says.
An Alberta Environment official said the report exaggerates both the scale of the leakage and the threat it poses.
The official, Preston McEachern, a scientist in the department's oil sands research group, says companies have been able to contain the seepage by digging trenches and using wells to intercept groundwater flows.
Some of the seepage also flows into aquifers, or deep underground water stores beneath the oil sands.
This underground water has already been naturally contaminated with hydrocarbons from the tar sands and any additions from tailings ponds would not be significant.
Notice LS - no where do they give their links - they just spout a figure.
Also note that given that before the tar sands were even developed - it was a naturally occuring event that saw contamination - did you ever wonder where the name "tar sands" came from. It is naturally occuring, LS - why would you think that contamination is only from man made sources.
Tailings are not tar sand. Tar sand does not flow very quickly. That is whole problem with its recovery and is why there are drag lines, bucket wheels, conveyors and various extraction processes, often using steam or water. But suspended in a water slurry, bitumen flows very nicely. 11 million litres a day. Based on the industry's own figures.
Suppose it is exaggerated by 100 times. Then it would be the same volume as the inauguration garbage, except it happens each and every day. Unlike the inauguration garbage which is now mostly cleaned up one day later.
ABG, you are in denial about so many things it's astonishing - Canada goes into an unprecedented financial crisis and the CP minority government responds with a vague plan to 'modernize' pay equity, saying it's too litigious. Uh huh. That doesn't sound fiscally responsible nor does it protect women's rights.
You might be already breathing too much dioxide
"BG, you are in denial about so many things it's astonishing - Canada goes into an unprecedented financial crisis and the CP minority government responds with a vague plan to 'modernize' pay equity, saying it's too litigious. Uh huh. That doesn't sound fiscally responsible nor does it protect women's rights."
What???? Myst... what are you talking about - you said they were taking away women's rights - I proved you wrong. If you want the whole economic statement - you can get it here. It might do you some good to read it and see that they have been acting since 2007
http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2008/Ec/ectoc-eng.html
or maybe here where you can see what the Conservatives have done for the economy.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/4739/106802
Quit believing all the spin - it is time that you faced the truth that the Harper government has been working on the economy while everyone else was playing around.
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=f5ec9cef-6654-4acc-9164-9e468011b18e
Happy reading! I hope you truly want to learn
Re: "What???? Myst... what are you talking about - you said they were taking away women's rights - I proved you wrong."
Actually it was EofE who said:
"Harper says "God bless Canada" and he's painted as a fire-breathing religious zealot who is going to take away women's rights.
I said in response to EofE:
"Actually it was Harper's last attempt at making a budget for the nation that painted him as a person with an interest in taking away women's rights. That, and his appointment of an individual embroiled in sexual harassment charges to the Senate. Not to mention all his anti-abortion friends that keep popping up and embarrassing him at inconvenient times to say the least...."
You proved nothing.
I'm not liking the personal nature of comments.
The rants and raves of a truly paranoid individual. You cannot refer to people with different opinions without calling them lefties (always with a derogatory inflection). You make bizarre claims without proof, links or backup -- because obviously there is no proof.
SQ, you have over stayed your welcome with your ranting. Bec is right:
SQ @ 4:05 am
The word "you" and "your" was used a total of 5 times in the comment at 4:05. That is personal.
The reference by name of 2 posters at this site was specific. That is personal.
I could go through all 50 plus comments, but why bother.
I am sick and tired of personal comments made about me and my readers. Comment moderation is going on, AGAIN!
I hate to do that, but it appears people don't want to play nice. Discuss the issue, do not attack the people posting here. If you play nice, your comment will make it through, if you want to attack someone, go do it on someone else's blog.
The freedom of choice, that feminists love so much, is now being used by this female blogger.
Read my rules!
The problem is not your rules, hunter. The problem is that you tend to apply them only to those who disagree with you.
For example, read some of the comments by East of Eden in past threads. They would be no big deal in most places, but when you demand a higher level of decorum here, you might get it if you apply that demand to those who agree with you as well as those who do not. Here in this thread, at 1:39pm is the very FIRST time EofE has responded to me in a civil way. I consider that a step forward. But then we see "maryt" insulting me in an earlier thread. No big deal, but no rebuke from you. It was surprising, maryt usually makes snide comments in my view, but generally avoids attacking others specifically, she tends to stick to their words.
Now what do you consider an attack? Would the following be an attack:
This post has not been amended. It continues to claim that Amnesty International does not denounce Hamas. This claim, in my view, is part of an ongoing BT theme that everybody but the CPC supporters are somehow supporting terrorists. A reprehensible strategy of demonizing the opposition, I expect better of Stephen Harper and the CPC and the BTs.
I refuted your claim about Amnesty and refuted it resoundingly, AG even declined to go near it. Yet your post continues to stand unchanged, and instead of dealing with that bit of actual substance, you have complained about the commenters here.
===
Was that what you call an attack? If so, exactly what sort of discussion do you expect?
Resuming the "attack":
Should I assume today's moderating and calling out other commenters is an effort to change the channel? Is it because you unwilling to admit you were mistaken and that Amnesty does in fact denounce Hamas on a regular basis?
LS - I'm not aware of attacking you - I usually go after SQ. Here's my point - no matter what Hunter blogs, SQ has to jump in with something that's either irrelevant or rude. Most of us can recognize somebody who's trying to stir the pot and that's his game. As such, it's unacceptable and intolerable.
He loves to call down Hunter but he cannot resist the call of her blog. Personally, I don't frequent blogs which I don't like. Near the beginning, I used to participate on Garth's blog but between his rude retorts and his fans' outright hostility (and lack of intelligence), I decided that it wasn't the sort of neighbourhood I wished to frequent and so I left. Occasionally, after the election, I joined in briefly but not very often.
For some reason, the blogosphere brings out some of the worst people and for some reason, Hunter has attracted a few of them.
If I don't agree with a blogger's post, I'll simply state that I disagree and give a concise reason as to why I disagree. I have never called a blog host names or called down his or her post. If the reply from the blogger is rude or snarky (as with Garth), then I cease.
As for yourself, you're usually pretty good but you do slip over to the critical side when you're making a point and that takes away from your argument. We won't always agree but we won't always disagree.
On TT's site, I had some good dialogue with a young Québécois with whom I disagree on almost everything - young, separatist, and bitter - but we had a pretty good dialogue.
I even had a reasonable dialogue with Garth's number one fan Zorpheus - and if that was possible, anything is possible. That being said - when people begin being jerks or playing silly buggers, then I'll pull out the zingers because those are people with whom we should not have to deal.
So is Hunter finished beating this straw man to death? "OMG this one lefty said WHAT and I'm going to assume all lefties are just like him!1!". Should I judge everything a conservative says on the basis of Rush Limbaugh?
Post a Comment