Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 If you were to ask a hundred randomly chosen Ontarians to say which provincial government was most deeply flawed with corruption, short-sightedness, cozy lobbyist-government sweetheart deals, general incompetence, dishonesty, contempt for democracy, and hidebound ideological dogma, I very much doubt that most people would point to the Rae government... What percentage of people would actually understand that question? Time heals wounds. If you asked a comprehensible version of that question in May of 1996 you would probably get a plurality choosing the Bob Rae government... Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
capricorn Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Time heals wounds. If you asked a comprehensible version of that question in May of 1996 you would probably get a plurality choosing the Bob Rae government... True. If you are an Ontarian over the age of 40, Rae days are too fresh in the mind to have healed or been forgotten. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 What percentage of people would actually understand that question? Virtually 100% of those competent with English and possessing an attention span of 8 seconds or greater. Time heals wounds. If you asked a comprehensible version of that question in May of 1996 you would probably get a plurality choosing the Bob Rae government... I'm sure you're right. What happened in the meantime to change that response was Harris-Eves, and then McGuinty. So what does that say about a blinkered, ideological focus on the flaws of the Rae government even now? It's a very simple point, and I have a feeling you're on the cusp of grasping it. Quote
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 The NDP also left Saskatchewan in far better shape economically than they inherited it. More than once, too. It would be ridiculous to point out the astonishing number of felony convictions among the Conservative cabinet of Grant Devine, and conclude that Conservatives have demonstrated a general incompetence or dishonesty that bars them from serious consideration. Fortunately, owing to the predominant biases hereabouts, few people will make such a silly argument... about Conservatives. Equally silly arguments about the NDP, however... Quote
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Virtually 100% of those competent with English and possessing an attention span of 8 seconds or greater. It is incompetence in English and/or short attention span that made your 49-word, rambling and gramatically incorrect sentence incomprehensible. The baseless arrogance is astounding... I'm sure you're right. What happened in the meantime to change that response was Harris-Eves, and then McGuinty. So what does that say about a blinkered, ideological focus on the flaws of the Rae government even now? It's a very simple point, and I have a feeling you're on the cusp of grasping it. More baseless arrogance? Wow! The simple point is Bob Rae was a disaster. Head to head he would get crushed by Harris or Eves. Nothing to grasp there just a plain fact. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 It is incompetence in English and/or short attention span that made your 49-word, rambling and gramatically incorrect sentence incomprehensible. I didn't want to say as much, but yes, that was obvious. Were you more competent or had you a longer attention span, I'm sure you'd have found it straightforward. Oh, and of course my sentence was not ungrammatical. "Rambling" I'm willing to say is in the eye of the beholder, but grammar isn't. And you misspelled "grammatical". It is a simple point indeed that obsessing on one party's flaws while ignoring similar or worse flaws in the others is a gross reasoning error. That doesn't mean everyone has to grasp it, naturally. Quote
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 It is a simple point indeed that obsessing on one party's flaws while ignoring similar or worse flaws in the others is a gross reasoning error. That doesn't mean everyone has to grasp it, naturally. Who has pointed out the flaws in the NDP to the exclusion of all other parties? Everyone else on this thread has pointed out flaws with the Liberals and/or CPC. To be as pedantic as you have been, I misspelled grammatically! Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) I misspelled grammatically! That is true; your misspelling was at least grammatical, though I much prefer the so-called Oxford Comma, when three items are listed. Also, you misspelled "grammatically". Edited January 5, 2008 by Kitchener Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 It is incompetence in English and/or short attention span that made your 49-word, rambling and gramatically incorrect sentence incomprehensible. The baseless arrogance is astounding... I swear I don't want to get into a personal tiff with anyone, especially about grammar. I just love talking grammar and I warn anyone who brings it up in the future, I'm joining in that discussion. Kitchener's sentence had perfect grammar. I would be interested to know what you thought was grammatically incorrect and would be happy to clarify the rules for you. BTW, again, since you brought it up and not to hurt your feelings, your sentence quoted above is not so impecable. A good rule to follow when you lead off with a list of conditional items is to make sure that it still makes sense if one is removed. Therefore, make sure it makes sense to say "It is short attention span that made your..." or "It is incompetence in short attention span that made your...". In this instance, it does not, so you should have said "It is your incompetence in English and/or your short attention span..." I agree that grammar is important, and properly structured sentences make it easier on all of us to read, so forgive my diversion for my wee lesson. But you shouldn't have mentioned that you found him arrogant. That's irrelevant to the argument and one of those personal attacks many posters on this board seem to be getting extremely tired of. Cheers. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) But you shouldn't have mentioned that you found him arrogant. That's irrelevant to the argument and one of those personal attacks many posters on this board seem to be getting extremely tired of.Cheers. Interesting. Are you really sure you didn't want to get into a 'personal tiff'? You said I shouldn't have mentioned I found him arrogant but you found no reason to take umbrage with Kitchener questioning my competence or the length of my attention span? Please explain the contradiction. (Yeah the grammar in my question probably wasn't so good.) Edited January 5, 2008 by Michael Bluth Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
BubberMiley Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Please explain the contradiction. Actually, I believe you initiated the discussion on short attention spans. Is having a short attention span a bad thing? I've never been ashamed of mine. But yeah, I'm more interested in political discussion than petty whining between anonymous posters, so personal attacks are annoying no matter which side of the political debate they're coming from. Don't expect me to bring it up every time it happens though. That would make an annoying forum completely unreadable. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Actually, I believe you initiated the discussion on short attention spans. Wrong. Please see post# 28. But yeah, I'm more interested in political discussion than petty whining between anonymous posters, so personal attacks are annoying no matter which side of the political debate they're coming from. Don't expect me to bring it up every time it happens though. That would make an annoying forum completely unreadable. Not expecting you to bring it up every time. If you are going to take somebody to task be honest in your approach. If you don't want to start a 'tiff' then don't pick out behaviour from one poster and not another. Honestly, take a look at post # 28 and see who initiated the discussion on short attention spans. If you truly don't want to start a tiff and don't care about sides of the political aisle. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2008 Author Report Posted January 5, 2008 Wrong. Please see post# 28. Not expecting you to bring it up every time. If you are going to take somebody to task be honest in your approach. If you don't want to start a 'tiff' then don't pick out behaviour from one poster and not another. Honestly, take a look at post # 28 and see who initiated the discussion on short attention spans. If you truly don't want to start a tiff and don't care about sides of the political aisle. Can we get back to the point of this thread? Laughing self righteous hair shirt Dippers caught in their own web of stupidity....? Thanks Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Can we get back to the point of this thread? Laughing self righteous hair shirt Dippers caught in their own web of stupidity....?Thanks Fair enough. Shoulda laughed off the pointless diversion. Lesson learned. Lend us your vote indeed... Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
M.Dancer Posted January 5, 2008 Author Report Posted January 5, 2008 Fair enough. Shoulda laughed off the pointless diversion. Lesson learned. Lend us your vote indeed... Me? If it don't rain and I don't run out of scotch I;m voting for the illuminati... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
BubberMiley Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Can we get back to the point of this thread? Laughing self righteous hair shirt Dippers caught in their own web of stupidity....? But don't threads like this just breed "humourless self-righteous hairshirt CPCers caught in their own web of stupidity" threads, sending this forum into a spiral of unreadable drivel? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 But don't threads like this just breed "humourless self-righteous hairshirt CPCers caught in their own web of stupidity" threads, sending this forum into a spiral of unreadable drivel? Why the continual attempts to stir things up? Especially given this... I swear I don't want to get into a personal tiff with anyone. Or do you just want to get into a tiff of a 'non-personal' nature? Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
BubberMiley Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) Or do you just want to get into a tiff of a 'non-personal' nature? Absolutely. I'm here to debate. If I disagree with someone I enjoy saying why and stating my position. I kind of thought it was, like, the purpose of this site, given that's the only type of discussion I've ever found...other than the annoying personal insults, of course. Edited January 5, 2008 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Michael Bluth Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Absolutely. I'm here to debate. If I disagree with someone I enjoy saying why and stating my position. I kind of thought it was, like, the purpose of this site, given that's the only type of discussion I've ever found...other than the annoying personal insults, of course. It truly does appear to be your only mission is to try and detract from the discussion of the NDP's terrible behaviour towards James Moore and Libby Davies charges against the Liberal candidate in BC. Can't remember the riding, probably because it was a CPC stronghold and neither the NDP nor the Liberals had a hope of winning it. Regardless if you really want to state your position why haven't you posted on: the Harper Having Trouble thread or; the GST Ads thread or; the Why was Mr. Malroney (ibid) not charged thread or; the Global Warming thread or; the Oil at $100 US thread or .... none of these threads have the annoying personal insults you claim to want to avoid yet habitually find yourself in. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Can we get back to the point of this thread? Laughing self righteous hair shirt Dippers caught in their own web of stupidity....?Thanks Fair enough. We can save context, facts, and perspective for another thread. ZOMG!11! NPD r stoopid! Heck, that's kinda fun! Quote
Topaz Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 True. If you are an Ontarian over the age of 40, Rae days are too fresh in the mind to have healed or been forgotten. I think if you ask provincial workers who did the "Rae days", after Harris came in, you may find alot would say "at least we had a job" Rae admits himself he made mistakes, Harris never admitted anything! Quote
Kitchener Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) I think if you ask provincial workers who did the "Rae days", after Harris came in, you may find alot would say "at least we had a job" Rae admits himself he made mistakes, Harris never admitted anything! Rae days weren't very clearly a mistake, except perhaps for a PR mistake. They were a hard-nosed response to a (partially self-inflicted) budget crisis. They were also relatively fair: you didn't get paid for a certain number of days, but you also didn't have to work on those days. Compared to job and wage cutbacks that forced people to do more work for less money, Rae days were a bargain. Edited January 5, 2008 by Kitchener Quote
Argus Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Oh, for the most part they may have been honest! You're asking the wrong question.Most people would point to the Rae government as having been the most inept... No, I think Peterson's was more inept. Rae's government was certainly inept, but many of its problems stemmed from its ideological commitments to the sorts of dumbass pie-in-the-sky policies which academics and political theorists love but which never work in the real world. Uh, those are the same sorts of policies and theories the federal NDP is so zealously committed to. Which is why they will never be elected. Well - not until the education system collapses to the point where the average voters is as woefully ignorant of life's realities as the NDP. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
BubberMiley Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 Well - not until the education system collapses to the point where the average voters is as woefully ignorant of life's realities as the NDP. They would have to keep the Tories in power for that to happen. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.