In most recent lunatic screed from those not-so-illustrious halls, CK complains that adding more parliamentary seats to account for population growth is "cheating", unless seats are added in Quebec despite the lack of population growth in that province.
And who's cheating? Why it's the Conservative Party, of course!
CK, of course, doesn't like this because of her deep-rooted hatred for anything even remotely associated with the Conservative Party -- like the provinces of Alberta (where the Tories hold all but one seat), British Columbia (where they hold 22 of 36 seats), or Ontario (where they hold 51 of 106 seats).
Of course, CK has an awfully interesting definition of cheating. Previously she insisted that if the Conservative Party were to enact ideas that they plan to campaign on (should they win) it would be "cheating".
(Interestingly enough, many more Canadians would suggest that it would effectively be cheating to campaign on an idea, win, and then not impliment it.)
By either standard, virtually every government elected in Canada would have cheated in one way or another. Yet when if the Conservatives were to act on the ideas they get elected on, it suddenly becomes intolerable. But only suddenly.
Continuing, CK suggests that continuously and permanently granting Quebec a disproportionate level of representation in Canada is the only way to convince Quebec it shouldn't separate.
The message CK would like to send to Stephen Harper seems rather simple: if you don't want to face continuous vapid accusations of cheating, just keep continually rigging the game in Quebec's favour.
Unfortunately, CK seems to have yet to figure out that Canada's future is not a game, and that Quebec will have to learn to play an equal part in that future, because separation isn't going to happen any time soon.
If all this weren't silly enough already, the "progressive" CK even indulges herself in a racial slur directed at a Quebec MP:
She is part of the CC groupthink brigade. Her education from Quebec could explain her deeply flawed logic, her inability to understand historical facts.
ReplyDeleteShe does provide some comic relief.
I don't think that education is any worse off in Quebec than it is anywhere else in the country.
ReplyDeleteReally, CK is just an ideological lunatic. The basic rule of thumb in her mind is relatively simple:
Anything left-wing = good. Anything conservative = pure evil.
The fact that she trolls around with some of the most evil individuals in the Canadian blogosphere -- going so far as to take their marching orders without so much as a bristle -- is really just the icing on the irony cake.
Twatsy, learn to read! I never said Quebec should never have anymore seats. I don't think there should be anymore seats. Don't you cons prefer smaller government anyway? 30 new seats would certainly expand government further at about 25 000 000$: Don't you cons hate wasteful spending?
ReplyDeleteNone of that BS on your page is true. If anybody has followed SSM, they would know that.
Wasn't asking for special favor for Quebec, however, it seems you all go out of your way to hate Quebec and the PM seems to want to kick Quebec out the door. Not my decision. That's how it is.
Oh, and Twatsy! I banned a fifth IP address from you again. How many of your IP addresses must I keep banning you in order for you to realize your brand of love letters and stalking are not welcome.
As for you Canadian Sense: nice of you to go behind me back, yet you never attempt to show up and tell me on my turf...real courageous, CS! And CS, I hope you would at least be smart enough to know that once banned from one IP address you would get the hint. Your little buddy doesn't.
And Twatsy, Ordinarily, one might be flattered that with all that's happening in the world, to have someone blog about them almost as often as current events, until they realize that it's just creepy.
Allow me to introduce myself here with specifics.
Help your fellow man; needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; the working class before big corporations and eradicating poverty and equal access to health care and other social programs, justice for all = good
Paranoia, Greed, bigotry, useless wars to keep corrupt governments in power = bad.
Unfortunately, the latter is all we see of today's conservatism: no redeeming social qualities here. You included. Not my fault you can't successfully defend irredeemable character flaws.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteWell, CK, if you weren't a lunatic, you would actually know this:
In Canada, the government and Parliament are actually separate entitles.
A larger Parliament does not equal a larger government. Anyone who can manage better than an "F" in Canadian political studies can figure that out (right, Audrey?).
As for your outrage at CS, CK, do you think the rest of us won't catch on to the fact that you don't allow any dissenting opinions at your blog, yet challenge him to chow up and tell you to your face?
I know what happens when I show up and tell you what a moron you are to your face. You ban the IP address.
The funny thing about knowing how to use differed IP addresses is that it tends to make it hard to do that, so you really aren't accomplishing anything.
And by the way, folks, allow me to again reiterate the irony that while CK runs and hides every time I turn up at her place, she's still allowed to comment over here.
Intelelctual courage, kids -- apparently, it isn't for everyone.
And before I wrap up here, I just want to query again why it is that CK seems to think it's OK to lob racial slurs at Tory MPs -- seeing as how asking that at her blog got me banned (again).
This might be an inconvenient truth for Pat to swallow, but many people have banned him from replying on their blogs not because of a problem with "dissenting opinion" (oddly, many seem to allow other "dissenters" to continue to comment) but because of a repeated pattern of trolling, misreading, and misrepresenting others' positions. It's not that Pat dissents, it's something else entirely that's resulted in bloggers increasingly refusing to interact with him.
ReplyDeleteMost bloggers that have instituted bans have stated this clearly, and their comments sections reflect that their bans aren't predicated on mere "dissent". It's an unwillingness to engage in good-faith discussion or debate and a penchant for "assholish" rhetoric rather than constructive communication.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled faux-persection caterwauling.
LOL
ReplyDeleteAudrey, Audrey, Audrey.
You need to understand that those kinds of words have absolutely no meaning coming from someone who has such a love of misrepresenting the views of others as you do.
Now I'm sure it's hard to accept that you can't make the case that a Tea Party protester intentionally spit on Emanuel Cleaver. I think we all know that's what your amusing comments here are really about.
I suggest you go cry about it on your own blog. Just because you're not content to humiliate yourself there doesn't mean you have to come do it over here.
Oh, and finally, one more note about this, kids, because Audrey is too stupid to figure this out:
ReplyDeleteI'm not "caterwauling" about being persecuted. Rather, I think the sheer intellectual cowardice of people like CK is actually hilarious.
But, like I said, Audrey is so stupid that these things just don't compute for her.
And that, folks, is a perfect illustration of why it isn't mere "dissent" that's resulted in Patrick having been banned from commenting on an increasing number of blogs.
ReplyDeleteHe can stomp his feet and cry "they can't stand dissent" and "they're intellectual cowards" all he wants. It won't change the fact that neither accurately describes why he's been banned. The vast majority of those blogs still allow "dissent" or opposing views to be posted. A little introspection might be in order... if he's capable of it.
ROTFL
ReplyDeleteIsn't that cute? Audrey on my blog, trying to preen to my readers.
Of course, many people have seen what goes on over at ETP whenever Audrey is wrong -- a particular self-lionizing brand of intellectual cowardice that consists of accusing other people of being juvenile while she acts juvenile.
God, one couldn't make this stuff up if they wanted to.
But Audrey still doesn't get it. She really doesn't.
She calls it "stamping and crying", when it isn't too hard to figure out what it really is -- pointing and laughing.
And by the way, folks, there's still a much freer commenting policy over here on these parts than there is on the far side of the "Blogging Iron Curtain".
There's even tolerance for Audrey's and CK's trolling here -- and, yup, Audrey's still too stupid to spot the irony.
Geez Nexusdude, you'd have better luck drilling thru cement with a toothpick than getting thru to these two noggins.
ReplyDeleteand then Audrey caterwauls...
"We now return you to your regularly scheduled faux-persection caterwauling."
speaking of, where's our buddy Sparky Sparkles?
Licking his wounds from our last encounter, when he and Audrey disocvered they couldn't make video evidence of congressman Emanuel Cleaver being "intentionally" spit on conclusive on their own say-so.
ReplyDeleteApparently, CK and Audrey -- the internet's worst bloggers -- have yet to figure out that this stuff isn't meant to get to them. It's meant to alert other people to how incredibly stupid and dishonest they are.
Are those both graduates from the failed groupthink temple?
ReplyDeleteI think Audrey, in particular, would like to build a groupthink temple of her own.
ReplyDeleteAs for CK, skimming over her blog it isn't too hard to catch the characterization of her as someone who's kissing up to Robbie Day to no particular avail.
And it seems that she thinks if she just kisses ass a little harder, she'll get some kind of payoff.