Let the Woman Speak!

[maldon_road]

May would only emphasize the failure of Harper in this area and win votes from environmentally friendly conservatives. Or is the argument that environment friendly conservatives don't exist?

If they were THAT concerned about the environment they would be Liberals.

[Argus]

Others hold the view that in a democratic society respecting differing political views and making them available to the voter for consideration is reasonable. Are you suggesting that because you are comfortable being contemptuous of others, we should all be?

I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot.

[Argus]

If they were THAT concerned about the environment they would be Liberals.

Because, like, the Liberals have done so much for the environment, right?

Or at least, they say they will, this time, really, promise. Again.

[Argus]

Actually, Wild Bill, I did respond as did others, making the point that how the Greens acquired an MP is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant that their only MP is a guy who the Liberals threw out of their party for ethics violations?

It would seem that Dion, Harper, Layton, Duceppe, and the broadcast consortium agree with me.

Dion is a loser who continues to desperately play what he sees as his only hole card: being a big environmentalists (even though he did nothing as environment minister by oppose kyoto). The others just saw it as an unessary distraction which wasn't making them look good. The ndp in particular. Harper doesn't really give a crap. The more idiots vote for her, the more the left vote is splt and the better off he is.

[Stephen Best]

It's irrelevant that their only MP is a guy who the Liberals threw out of their party for ethics violations?

For the purposes of which leaders qualify for the televised debate, yes. If ethics had anything to do with it, Harper wouldn't be allowed on the stage.

[Stephen Best]

I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot.

Argus, no doubt there will be many idiots voting in the election. That's one of the downsides of democracy. And something Harper is counting on to win a majority.

[blueblood]

Argus, no doubt there will be many idiots voting in the election. That's one of the downsides of democracy. And something Harper is counting on to win a majority.

40% of canadians are idiots?

[Stephen Best]

40% of canadians are idiots?

Sad, don't you think? But look on the bright side; 60% aren't.

[blueblood]

Sad, don't you think? But look on the bright side; 60% aren't.

I don't think Liberal or NDP supporters are idiots, they vote for the party that best supports their interests. Idiots are idiots of all stripes doesn't matter which way they vote.

[Stephen Best]

I don't think Liberal or NDP supporters are idiots, they vote for the party that best supports their interests. Idiots are idiots of all stripes doesn't matter which way they vote.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you not imply that the over 800,000 people who vote Green are idiots when you wrote, "I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot."

As an aside, you do know that Stephen Harper was a professional activist as President of the National Citizens Coalition.

[blueblood]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you not imply that the over 800,000 people who vote Green are idiots when you wrote, "I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot."

As an aside, you do know that Stephen Harper was a professional activist as President of the National Citizens Coalition.

Is my name argus? i think the green party is irrelevant regardless

[Stephen Best]

Is my name argus? i think the green party is irrelevant regardless

My apologies, blueblood. Of course you're not argus.

[Bryan]

40% of canadians are idiots?

It think it's much higher than that.

[capricorn]

May is suing a blogger for his use of a videotaped interview where she is alleged to have said "Canadians are stupid".

Buckdog’s motives are clear, but in his defense, what Ms. May was trying to say really isn’t. Still, the Green Party responded swiftly with a lawsuit demanding that “if the video ‘Canadians Are Stupid!” -- Elizabeth May’ is not removed from your site within the hour the Green Party of Canada will seek means to prevent legal proceedings further slander,” a statement that in itself is not a model of clarity. The blogger responded that he was just posting a YouTube clip. Still, he eventually complied and took it down.

Of course, Ms. May has every right to demand that false and damaging charges against her be retracted. But this was a direct audio recording of the Green leader speaking on a TVO panel. And rather than trying to clear the record with some reasonable explanation (though, it’s hard to see what that might be), Ms. May takes a page from Stephen Harper’s litigious political playbook and reflexively threatens to sue -- a day after she dropped another lawsuit against broadcasters for refusing to let her participate in televised debates. Given the Tories’ success with that tactic so far, it would be hard to call that stupid.

Perhaps the proper thing would be to let Canadians hear the remarks and decide for themselves. As Ms. May herself put it yesterday, after winning her battle to get on the debates, democracy “happens when Canadians are engaged and speak up.”

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...me-blogger.aspx

On one hand May initiated legal action be heard at the debates and mounted a huge campaign in which she played the gender card, also calling it a question of upholding democratic rights, and she won. Then, she threatened a lawsuit against a blogger for posting a video in which she gives a public interview, demands it be pulled down, and she won. Is democracy and freedom of speech a one-way street for Ms. May?

Edit: I don't subscribe to editing my posts after I have posted something which many of my fellow posters have already read. I would feel dishonest doing so. So I amend what I said that May is suing the blogger. In fact, she is not. However, she did demand that the blogger remove the video he had posted about the interview she gave and the blogger acquiesced. This does not alter my view that May has her own version of what democracy and freedom of speech entail.

Edited September 12, 2008 by capricorn

[CANADIEN]

I'm suggesting anyone who would vote for this shrill, rich girl turned lifelong, professional activist and protestor is an idiot.

This from the man who thinks slavery is an idea worth considering.

[Bryan]

May is suing a blogger for his use of a videotaped interview where she is alleged to have said "Canadians are stupid".

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...me-blogger.aspx

On one hand May initiated legal action be heard at the debates and mounted a huge campaign in which she played the gender card, also calling it a question of upholding democratic rights, and she won. Then, she threatened a lawsuit against a blogger for posting a video in which she gives a public interview, demands it be pulled down, and she won. Is democracy and freedom of speech a one-way street for Ms. May?

Edit: I don't subscribe to editing my posts after I have posted something which many of my fellow posters have already read. I would feel dishonest doing so. So I amend what I said that May is suing the blogger. In fact, she is not. However, she did demand that the blogger remove the video he had posted about the interview she gave and the blogger acquiesced. This does not alter my view that May has her own version of what democracy and freedom of speech entail.

LOL!! This deserves it's own thread, with a direct link to the Youtube clip!

That debate is going to be a train wreck of epic proportions.