kimmy

Intense isn't the word I'd use, but ok. I made an honest effort to boil down his bloated cut-n-paste laden ramblings to their essense and respond to the actual points he's making (as meagre as those are) and what did I get for my trouble? He cut-n-pasted the same rambling pile of poo back to me, and reposted the same pile of poo to respond to somebody else as well. He hasn't made any effort to actually participate in discussion. In fact, he hasn't even shown he's capable of original thought. All of this stuff he's posting might easily have been copied word-for-word from some website. Maybe I'll spend a few minutes later on and see if I can find a website that these messages have been copied word-for-word from. (do you think I'll succeed?) I'm happy to discuss things with people who are willing to put some effort and original thought into a discussion. River_god has done neither. I don't think he's earned any further effort. This is like trying to have a discussion with a street-corner preacher. Try and ask him some questions and he'll just jam a Jack Chick tract into your hand and keep on ranting. Here's a challenge for you, n00b... you seemed so impressed by his message in the Morals and Religions section... "A New Years Blessing for GW Bush". I invite you to paraphrase him. Produce a nice, concise little summary. That's my challenge. I'm curious to see what you come up with, and whether you still think it's such a brilliant post after you've gone through the exercise. -k

It was an investment, one that's paid off a thousandfold for the entrepreneurs and governments and citizens of central Canada. Don't act like it was generosity or altruism. The government established sovereignty over lands that are worth millions of times whatever sheckles were spent building railroads and garrisons and bringing in eastern european bumpkins, like my mother's people, to settle the place. The bankers and businessmen who spent their money here were well rewarded. Central Canada got cheap raw materials and a captive market for its manufactured goods. Whatever extra cash Diefenbaker's NOP cost Ontarions was, likewise, an investment that helped build an industry that has contributed trillions of dollars to Canada. Your generousity has been returned in spades, your investment has seen astronomical returns... so please spare us the "you owe us!" stuff. -k

When the last spike was driven, Eureka was there to cover it for the London Telegraph. -k

Don't look now, but I don't think there's actually such thing as a "black lifestyle" or a "Jewish lifestyle". However, there are indeed significant numbers in the homosexual community that continue to lead a high-risk lifestyle which is known to lead to astronomical drug and disease statistics in the gay community. Is it hateful to acknowledge that there are problems? Was it a "gang problem" ?? If so, what's wrong with discussing it. I don't believe there's anything wrong with discussing it. However, I would point out that just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's feasible. In theory it would be easy for any offended minority to file a human rights complaint against any such discussion; as I understand it, they don't need to show that the statements are harmful or without merit... all they need to make a complaint, apparently, is to fire off a letter. People can suffer legal expenses and damage to their reputation as a result of complaints, even if the complaints are without merit. But more seriously for society at large, it is quite possible that merely the threat of complaint stifles discussion of relevant issues. Sure. But now instead of dismissing the topic out of hand, you're discussing the topic, and even agreeing there's potential for abuse. It's not something to be dismissed out of hand. It could be quite important. As I said earlier, the possibility that "human rights" commissions could infringe on our constitutional freedoms is something we should be mindful of. -k

one of my favorite CBC moments of 2005 (not that there were many) was when Rick Mercer more or less called Brison a fag on his show. -k

Yup. You were one guy I was pretty sure would think this was a great post. -kimmy {short and antagonistic... but not sarcastic. }

OMG, he plans to literally annihilate them, leaving empty black spaces. Perhaps using some sort of futuristic weapon, like a Point Singularity Cannon that he probably got from his evil neo-con buddy Richard Perle, AKA Darth Vader! -k

but... but... how would people show that they're Special Snowflakes? They'd have to resort to "ideas" and "opinions" to express their individuality, and we all know what kind of trouble THAT would lead to. -k

...and when it comes to drivel, you're the leading authority. A number of responses have been posted, and you haven't responded to any of them. One could look at well-publicized incidents surrounding "human rights" complaints against groups like the Elks or rec hockey leagues for excluding women. One could look at Scott Brockie, the Christian printer that was sued for refusing to print gay and lesbian pamphets, or Chris Kempling, the teacher who was suspended from his job for writing letters to the editor critical of homosexual lifestyles. One can look at how police forces and news outlets have been cowered from discussing any issue of race for fear of offense. That's good, right? It's bad when people talk about race, right? Except when the Toronto Star wanted to examine racial profiling a couple of years ago, there weren't any statistics, because the police had been discouraged from keeping statistics about race. One can look at Caribbean gang problems in Toronto or aboriginal gang problems on the prairies that have been allowed to fester and grow for years in complete silence because people have been so scared of causing offense that legitimate discussion of social problems has been stifled. -k

But..... The Cons will have to win a majority to have any effect on events in Quebec in the next couple of years. Same for the Libs really. No, no. I don't believe a government forcing contentious issues through parliament is necessary to turn the tables. I think that just showing Quebecers that somebody other than the Liberals can form the government in this country will have a dramatic effect. August is more qualified to comment on this than me, but I strongly suspect that a fair chunk of the BQ's support is made up of people who vote BQ out of disgust for the Liberals. A Conservative win would alert those voters that they have other options. I also suspect that many people in Quebec who vote Liberal actually dislike the Liberals but vote Liberal because they dislike the BQ even more. I think proving to Quebecers that there is another national alternative would make a far greater positive impact on national unity than any policy that either the Liberals or Conservatives could enact. -k

The premise is, indeed, silly. But with a superb cast, compelling characters, and strong writing, the show works. (or at least, the first season was superb; I haven't had the opportunity to see much of the new season.) Many of the best episodes focused on one character, exploring their background through flashbacks from their prior life (meaning prior to being marooned) and a situation that in some way defined the person they are-- mistakes they made, choices they regret, and so on. "Lost" refers to not just their geographic location, but also to some spiritual aspect of each character. In their struggles, they find themselves in parallel situations and, in some sense, have a chance to make the same choice again... or make a different one. It's not done in such a ham-handed manner as I've described it, it's done quite elegantly. Some of the best literature comes from a silly premise... what makes great literature is not the premise, but the ability to touch on themes that have broader appeal. This election is not 1984 redux if only because of the Bloc. There has been a fundamental shift in Canadian politics, and the ongoing war within the Liberal Party is part of it.The basic issue concerns how Quebec fits within Canada. I was surprised to notice that in the recent Ekos poll (2000 sample size), the BQ was below 50% in Quebec because of the rise of Quebec Conservative support. If the BQ gets less than 50% of the popular vote in Quebec on 23 January, pequistes will publicly say it was not a referendum election while privately, they'll admit that there is a message. I'm a little unwilling to accept that everything is about Quebec; maybe I'm just in denial. But I think that as long as Quebecers believe they have only 2 real choices-- go Liberal, or go separatist-- this country will in some sense be held hostage by the issue. I think that a Conservative victory in this election-- even if it's a minority, even if it's short-lived, even if there's not a single Quebec Conservative MP-- will challenge that view. I think that a Conservative victory in "the rest of Canada" would encourage some Quebec involvement in the party, allow the party to get stronger candidates and a stronger presense in the province (and likewise in Ontario, where I think the party is still largely viewed with suspicion.) I think that it is essential to this country's future that the Conservatives become a truly national party, and I think that a victory in this election would accelerate that process, spur central Canada to get involve and somewhat dilute the western influence in the party (which is not a bad thing). I think that if the Conservative party wins this election, the BQ will not be polling 50% when the next election rolls around. -k

Well then (to borrow a page from your book) Martin has ample opportunity to articulate that and refute it. If it's as loathesome as you say, then surely it'll backfire on Harper. Canadians can be the judge of that, and of Martin's self-professed patriotism. -k

what in the freaking hell is this guy talking about?? -k

Now that's scary.... Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of. Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ??? Typical hysterics, but nothing to do with what I said. I strongly suspect Harper was talking about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, all of which have been challenged in some way or another in the name of minority rights. But that's not stuff you're interested in talking about, is it. is not worth discussing until we have the whole quote and the context in which it was said.How do I know it's not the whole quote? Because we don't even get to know what Harper says is of primary importance. Give us the whole quote and the context it was made in if you want to discuss it. Gee, could you help me think of a context where the meaning of this statement would be any different.... I'm having difficulty with this one..... We won't know until we get the full quote, will we. But dealing in editted quotes and taking quotes out of context is about all your ilk have left now, isn't it. You say a lot, but all of it is drivel. -k

I noticed you've switched from blue script to red script. Does that mean you're "going negative"? Nothing to say about the argument.... cat's got your tongue... or are you too awestruck by all the pretty colours.... What's here that's worth commenting on? He attended a Bilderberg conference. (shrug) Conrad Black and Richard Perle also attended. So did 98 other people. Here's the list: http://www.bilderberg.org/2003.htm Yep, Harper's there. So is that chick that owns Indigo Books. So are business and political leaders from the United States, Canada, and every European country of any note. My favorite guest: Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. I enjoy him every time he appears on Jon Stewart's Daily Show. Then a bunch of stuff about Perle. Then a bunch of stuff about Conrad Black and Hollinger. (shrug.) What link is there between Black and Harper, or Perle and Harper? You guys seem to read so much into those 3 people being at the same conference. What makes you so sure those 3 are connected in some sort of Unholy Secret Triangle of Doom? What if the Unholy Secret Triangle is actually Stephen Harper, Heather Reisman, and Fareed Zakaria??? I can't imagine what sort of ultra secret plots those 3 might be hatching, but I bet it would involve Harper's face on the cover of every Newsweek Magazine on shelves in every Chapters store in Canada. (shudder.) Then the shocking revelation that The Tyee magazine-- the left-coast's left-wing alternative news magazine-- has philosophical disagreements with the "Calgary School", and was able to find a university professor who feels the same. Then some blather about a secret address to a secret think-tank called "Civitas". Well, unless there's other conservative think-tanks called Civitas around, they're not exactly secret: http://www.civitas.org.uk/books/about.php Imagine. A conservative politician giving an address for a conservative think-tank. This just gets more and more shocking, doesn't it? And then some quotes. Now that's scary.... Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of. And this one, of course, is not worth discussing until we have the whole quote and the context in which it was said.How do I know it's not the whole quote? Because we don't even get to know what Harper says is of primary importance. Give us the whole quote and the context it was made in if you want to discuss it. -k Ok, since you insist, I've reacted to your 'truth'. Get busy. -k Posting the same tripe again and again doesn't make it any truer (or any more lucid, either.) -k

test Test number 2 Test number 3 edit: yup. It looks like if someone posts consecutive messages, the board will turn them into a single message. somewhat inconvenient. -k

I noticed you've switched from blue script to red script. Does that mean you're "going negative"? -k Hardly, I think you would do well to actually read up on the collective philosophies of the group that River is speaking of. He is pretty much dead on from what I can tell, I am simply surprised that such a direct link exisits between Harper and this group. Excellent post River, I for one appreciate the information. It's not really news. Our friend "onlythetruth" posted all of this months ago, shortly before he was abducted by the Star Angels for rectal probing. -k

You know, relative to other places in the world, we certainly are doing quite well. And if people were considering replacing Prime Minister Martin with a military dictator or something, I'd share your concern. But this is Canada. We have a multi-party democracy with strong traditions. Paul Martin's opponents are Stephen Harper and Jack Layton. Not Generalissimo Tropogrosso. Sleep easy. Rest assured that whatever happens, we have a strong constitution and the rule of law prevails. Take comfort in the knowledge that whatever happens on January 23, things will continue to be just fine on January 24 and onward. You'll still be free to express yourself in pretty blue script. And you'll get to vote again on the government in 4 years or less. -k

"Bilderberg" is a favorite object of obsession amongst the same sorts who fixate upon "chem-trails", "orgones", or the belief that the world is controlled by 12-foot tall lizards. Bilderberg, as well as the Skull & Bones Society, have leapfrogged ahead of the Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich as the new hotness amongst the conspiracy crowd. It is not terribly surprising that Stephen Harper has been to conferences attended by influential right-wing sorts. It's about as surprising as discovering that Paul Martin or Belinda Stronach are acquainted with other billionaires. -k

Harper's quip about CSL was an entirely fitting response to Martin's continued blather about trying to make his self-proclaimed Patriotism an election issue. Martin's efforts on that front should be embarrassing to any Canadian with an IQ over about 50, and he ought to be ashamed. Harper gave him exactly the kind of response he deserved. As low as a politician can get? That's a laugh. We've seen politicians go a hell of a lot lower in recent years. Physically assaulting a handicapped guy, or joking about the RCMP pepper-spraying of peaceful protestors, for instance. -k

Can you point to a thread in particular that's giving you trouble? Your posts seem ok to me, but I want to be sure that we're looking at the same thing. I'm wondering if there might be some sort of thread view option in the "My Controls" section that needs to be changed. -k

I suspect that Kinsella and Copps believe that if Harper wins, his reign will be a short one. I think they believe that if Harper wins, the Liberals will use the "time-out" to get their ship back in order, force an election, and take back power. (they could well be right.) The timetable for all of this might be less than a year. Paul Martin would most likely resign immediately as Liberal leader if the Liberals lose this election. They could have a leadership convension this spring, a policy convention this summer, and force an election in the fall. How does the country "fundamentally shift" if the Liberals lose? Do you ever watch TV, August? On the fantasy-themed castaway TV show "Lost", there was a plot that reminded me a bit of the dilemna Canadian voters face. The castaways discovered some kind of underground bunker, staffed by a lone hermit. There is a doomsday clock in the bunker that starts up at random, and the hermit informed the castaways that when the doomsday clock starts, the Big Red Button has to be pressed before the clock counts down to zero... or "something terrible will happen." Because the clock starts at random, somebody always has to be there to press the button. The hermit believes he's kept the world safe by staying there to press the button for so many years. He's been made a prisoner, confined to the bunker not by lock and key but by the fear of what might happen if he isn't there to press the button. Jack, the leader of the castaways, is a doctor, a man of science, and he dismisses all of this as ridiculous. When the clock starts, Jack scoffs and tells the others that nobody is going to press the button, and nothing is going to happen. But ultimately, as the clock is ticking off its final seconds, it is Jack's hand that shoots out to press the Big Red Button. He blinked. He lost his nerve. In that moment, he decided that he would rather play the game than find out what happens if he doesn't. I haven't followed this season... I don't know if the castaways have found out what happens if nobody presses the Big Red Button in time. Maybe they found out and it wasn't a disaster after all. Or maybe they're still pressing the button. I wonder, when they're alone in the voting booth, if Canadians will find themselves making the same decision as Jack. The Big Red Button is right there on you ballot, it's safe, it's reassuring. Canadians have been told over and over that "something terrible will happen" if they don't press the button. Canadians might find it tempting to just keep playing the game. Canadians might lose their nerve to find out what happens if they don't press the Big Red Button this time. But what if Canadians don't press the Big Red Button, and decide to find out what happens. Suppose they let the doomsday clock count down, and the world doesn't end after all? It sort of removes any incentive to go back to playing that game, doesn't it? The risk that Kinsella and Copps and that camp are taking is that Canadians will choose not to press the Big Red Button, and discover the consequences aren't so terrible after all. What if Harper gets elected, and all of the scary consequences people have been warned of just don't materialize? Fear of the unknown has worked for the Liberals for a long time, but they're giving Canadians a great chance to get really familiar with Harper. This might not work out as well for the Chretienite Liberals as they expect. -k

Pat Robertson: "I really hate having to be such an asshole, but I have to. It's God's Will."

That is the problem! The conservatives can be as negative as they want and it is OK, but should a liberal even disagree with them, the Liberal is doing the "scary, scary, scary" BS. What a double standard. Can you imagine how easy it will be for them to justify everything, with that kind of mentality? Isn't that the whole idea of an election campaign? Make yourself look good and make the other guy look bad? If the Liberals' attack ads have become too easy to deflect, it's their own fault. They've gone to that well so often that probably just about everybody in Canada has figured it out by now. It has become a formulaic parody that has lost its former impact by being repeated so often. Anyway, why would the Conservatives campaign according to Marquess of Queensbury rules, when their opponents never have? The past few elections it's been Conservatives whining about Liberal tactics. The fact of the matter is, they got out-strategized in those elections. This time, rather than whining, they are trying to beat the Liberals at their own game. The only "double standard" here is that Liberals are not happy about the tables being turned against them. -k

Well, I've never been (officially) a student at the UofA, and I've never really considered myself a Conservative, or even a conservative (although some people here seem to think I am just a little to the right of Ann Coulter, for some reason.) What I am most definitely is pro-change, and Harper is the only realistic option. I'm extremely pleased with how he's doing this time out, and cautiously optimistic (though still expecting the proverbial "other shoe" to drop. ) I don't see a problem. In the past several elections, the Liberals have reached for the "scary scary scary" ads. A Liberal strategist even boasted of the plan to the Globe'n'Mail just a month ago. The Conservatives would be foolish to not anticipate negative ads and try to shape how the public will view them. CPC wants voters to view the Liberal attack ads (when or if they arrive) as the last refuge of a desperate party that has nothing positive to talk about. It's sound strategy. I think that the Liberals will become worried with the direction this campaign has headed so far, and become increasingly desperate to change the momentum. I think it's only a matter of time before they again reach for the "scary scary scary", and when that happens, the CPC will try to use those ads against them. I'm not quite as sure that the Conservatives' own negative ads are sound strategy. However, it might not hurt. The problem the CPC had last election was that they were so negative that people got the impression they didn't have any ideas of their own to talk about. People thought all they had to offer was badmouthing the Liberals This time around they've kept the spotlight on their own platform, and a negative ad is probably not going to detract from the work they've done at articulating their positions. -k