Figleaf

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party: -ignorance, -stupidity, and/or -perceived self-interest. Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

that's a very well-considered and positive contribution to the debate. As good as most of yours, amigo.

I never called you a slug. Never. Don't lie. Is that an "imputed" meaning then? I told you I was giving you an opportunity to show your superiority over a slug. I never indicated that I believed you are a slug. Clearly in addition to remembering better you need to read more carefullly as well.

I have some swampland in Florida and an attractive bridge available in NYC for anyone who believes that.

Refresh my memory please. Who? You can't guess? No. I can't think of anyone...either from the NDP or Conservatives. So whom are you refrring to? And what incident? Search your memory, I'm sure it will come to you. Hah! Just as I thought. You've got no answer. Oh, I know exactly what I'm refering to. I want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you have recall capabilities better than a slug. Hello? You've made the claim, not me. I called you on it. 'Called me' on it? How so? Why not? That's an interpretation I don't agree with. I never called you a slug. Never. Don't lie.

That's an absurd construction to try to place on Mackay's comment. Don't you knee-jerking Cons understand that such convolutions merely reflect as badly on your honesty as they do on Mackay's? Guess not. But no-one (smart) ever said Cons were smart.

You don't seem to understand the concept of quoting someone. Quoting someone means to repeat their exact words. In neither of these preceding threads have you given Mackays exact word's, so you are not succeeding in quoting him.

Are you trying to quote Mackay there? If so, you have failed utterly.

MacKay didn't try to deny 'the exchange'. He denied calling Stronach a dog. So are you saying he is trying to deny the imputed meaning of the exchange? If so, he should say what alternate meaning we should draw from it. Failing that he's still just weaseling.

Refresh my memory please. Who? You can't guess? No. I can't think of anyone...either from the NDP or Conservatives. So whom are you refrring to? And what incident? Search your memory, I'm sure it will come to you. Hah! Just as I thought. You've got no answer. Oh, I know exactly what I'm refering to. I want to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you have recall capabilities better than a slug.

I expressed neither a liking or dislike for such a reference. I did point out that calling someone names is worse than simple swearing. Kind of juvenile, but kind of funny too. I can't remember what exact point Crosby was trying to make. I also can't detect what your point is here. Care to enlighten me?

Harper might end up wishing he could count on Garth Turner's vote, eh?

What is this, the rhetorical questions thread? Is the pope nuts? Does a bear shit in the woods?

Dreaming in technicolor because? Because they have no hope at all of winning a majority, obviously. His reference to her as a dog is a fact. Weasel around it all you like -- it does your credibility no more good than it does his. Exactly how am I 'misrepresenting' the weaseling of Mackay?

That seems contradictory. If they don't like bullshit, how can they stand to vote Conservative?

Weasling dishonesty? He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained. Tempest in a teapot. Coonservative majority in the spring! Conservative majority? You're dreaming in technicolor. Weaseling dishonesty? Yes. What else would you call his attempt to deny the exchange?

What? I'm a liberal (though not a Liberal) and I resent that comment.

You mean Liberal, I think.

Why leave your audience guessing. Precision is preferable. Besides, being a liberal, I resent being lumped in with Liberals.

I would agree with you, insulting Belinda is a very small transgression. What is much more problematic is Mackay's weaseling dishonesty in light of being caught. That demonstrates that his ethics are 'convenient' at best, and serves to re-inforce his already well-known truth-deficient conduct.

Many posters here seem to have trouble with the proper way to use the terms 'Liberal' (capital L) and 'liberal' (small L). If you are refering to a political party called the Liberal party, to communicate that meaning clearly, since it is a proper noun, you should use a capital L. If you are refering to a political philosophy characterized by individual rights protected by limits on the state, use 'liberal'. If you mean a sweeping reference to mushy leftism, 'liberal' is an incorrect usage that is merely confusing.

There is a difference between general swearing and taking a cheapshot AT someone else.

Refresh my memory please. Who? You can't guess? No. I can't think of anyone...either from the NDP or Conservatives. So whom are you refrring to? And what incident? Search your memory, I'm sure it will come to you.

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her." McGinty's comment is quite audible too.

It's not written down, the speaker didn't hear it, the clerks went over the audio record carefully and didn't hear it either. Mackay's comment is quite audible in the CPAC recording.