cybercoma Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 You're intelligent, but you're a stubborn old coot. I guess this post is personal, but when has anything you've posted not been personal. A quick search of your most recent posts offer nothing but ridicule and insult for those who support the CPC and believe in their values. When will you realize that there are other viewpoints on this planet besides yours and that the world is far more complicated than the black and white that you see it. There are shades of grey you absolutely refuse to take into consideration and it's really tiring hearing you muttering the same ignorant indignation for anything remotely blue. I rarely, if ever, have seen a conservative supporter broad brush Liberal supporters as morons, imbeciles or any other word or phrase you'd like to use for intellectually inferior. It would serve you well to show a little decorum when dealing with people. It's easier to accomplish things when you have everyone working towards the same goal, rather than fighting them every step of the way. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 22, 2006 Author Report Posted January 22, 2006 Jeez, I suck. Even trying to extend an olive branch, I'm a bitter imbecile. Quote
Boru Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 Jeez, I suck. Even trying to extend an olive branch, I'm a bitter imbecile. Haha, well, no need to call him out I guess.There are radicals and rocvk heads on each side. I can be pretty rock headed myself. Quote
Melanie_ Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 Jeez, I suck. Even trying to extend an olive branch, I'm a bitter imbecile. At least you tried. Part of the appeal of MLW is the diverse cross section of intelligent opinion, which you both contribute to. Who wants to hear everyone agree with each other? Where's the challenge in that? Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
newbie Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 You're intelligent, but you're a stubborn old coot. I guess this post is personal, but when has anything you've posted not been personal. A quick search of your most recent posts offer nothing but ridicule and insult for those who support the CPC and believe in their values. When will you realize that there are other viewpoints on this planet besides yours and that the world is far more complicated than the black and white that you see it. There are shades of grey you absolutely refuse to take into consideration and it's really tiring hearing you muttering the same ignorant indignation for anything remotely blue. I rarely, if ever, have seen a conservative supporter broad brush Liberal supporters as morons, imbeciles or any other word or phrase you'd like to use for intellectually inferior. It would serve you well to show a little decorum when dealing with people. It's easier to accomplish things when you have everyone working towards the same goal, rather than fighting them every step of the way. I don't need to come to eureka's defense but when it comes to decorum, perhaps you'd better do a bigger search. The amount of whining and complaining and smearing Liberals is unparalled on this board. And I don't get it. You cons are winning! Why the anger? Quote
Guest eureka Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 Not an imbecile, CC. You would not even be able to write if you were. Just a little better! The world is indeed a complocated place and so is politics and national governance. When you have been on earth a little longer you will come to realize that. Or you will if you ever open your mind to what you read. In the meantime, if Harper does get a majority tomorrow, you will have four years to wonder what you have wrought. Don't do the sackcloth and ashes bit, though. Your tears will make it muddy. Quote
stignasty Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 At least you tried. Part of the appeal of MLW is the diverse cross section of intelligent opinion, which you both contribute to. Who wants to hear everyone agree with each other? Where's the challenge in that? Agreed. On the whole this forum is fairly tolerant. During the last election I was banned from a forum for suggesting that a Conservative minority would be favourable to a majority. Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
normanchateau Posted January 22, 2006 Report Posted January 22, 2006 The amount of whining and complaining and smearing Liberals is unparalled on this board. And I don't get it. You cons are winning! Why the anger? Conservative anger likely wouldn't disappear even if Harper were to win a majority. Sure, they'll drink and party on election night but the anger will soon return. Look at US conservatives. They control the White House, Senate and Congress...but they're still angry. As for the majority of Canadians, i.e., those of us who are voting Liberal, NDP, BQ or Green, I suspect the entertainment value of Harper and his MPs will rapidly attenuate any lingering disappointment. The new social and religious conservative MPs, muzzled by Harper during the campaign, can be counted on to humiliate themselves. The Harper cabinet, replete with men of "integrity" like the backstabbing Peter MacKay and creationists like Stockwell Day, I'm sure won't disappoint. And how about the newly minted Quebec Conservative MPs? Will they be resigning in humiliation and disgrace at the same rate as they were when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister? And will they be just as "federalist" as Conservative MP Lucien Bouchard? Have they been screened by Harper as carefully as the BC Conservative candidate charged with multiple counts of smuggling? And how about the mainstream media? How long a honeymoon period will they allow Conservative MPs? No wonder Canadian conservatives will remain angry. Quote
kimmy Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
normanchateau Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k Kimmy, it seems to me that his tolerance of disgraceful MPs is beyond question. He tolerated Gurmant Grewal even when Grewal defied him, e.g., the Rachel Marsden affair. Quote
Montgomery Burns Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Normanchateau: Look at US conservatives. They control the White House, Senate and Congress...but they're still angry. You've got to be kidding. It's the Democrats who act like a bunch of angry little kids while the public views the Republicans as the grownups. Quote "Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!" -- Iraqi Betty Dawisha, after dropping her vote in the ballot box, wields The Cluebat™ to the anti-liberty crowd on Dec 13, 2005. "Call me crazy, but I think they [iraqis] were happy with thier [sic] dumpy homes before the USA levelled so many of them" -- Gerryhatrick, Feb 3, 2006.
scribblet Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Jeez, I suck. Even trying to extend an olive branch, I'm a bitter imbecile. At least you tried. Part of the appeal of MLW is the diverse cross section of intelligent opinion, which you both contribute to. Who wants to hear everyone agree with each other? Where's the challenge in that? Thats why I like this board, its diverse, but I do find it odd for such a well run board that the owner tolerates the personal attacks and calling people 'vermin' because they disagree with him. In fact, other than on rabble/babble I've rarely seen such vitriol vented on other posters. At least he doesn't swear, it could be worse I suppose. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
scribblet Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k He may have to face her and some others down, and as much as I disagree with her sometimes, she and the others have a right to a voice in democracy, its all part of the process, if the people elect her than she has a right to represent them. I don't get it when (liberals in particular) seem to think that no one else has a right to a voice in democracy. Norman: I've no idea what you are talking about re Rachael Marsden, obviously its a non starter and not worth air time, at least in Ontario LOL Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Argus Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k Why does he need to face down Cheryl Gallant? So far as I know she is very pro-life (as is Harper), and that's about the extent of her "problems". If she were a Liberal the press would be ignoring her as they do the very pro-life Liberals. But the Tories have been trying to keep her under wraps during the election to keep from aiding the Liberals big-scary-guy campaign on abortion and gay marriage. 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
tml12 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Something that occured to me earlier tonight, Norman, is that as Harper will more than likely have the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is once he's elected. I suspect that facing down a Cheryl Gallant after he's elected will prove more to Canadians about Harper's tolerance than anything he's said during the election. -k Why does he need to face down Cheryl Gallant? So far as I know she is very pro-life (as is Harper), and that's about the extent of her "problems". If she were a Liberal the press would be ignoring her as they do the very pro-life Liberals. But the Tories have been trying to keep her under wraps during the election to keep from aiding the Liberals big-scary-guy campaign on abortion and gay marriage. If he faces her down, it will be fore show. Harper has shown he is okay with allowing his MPs to have their own view, and I respect that. Hopefully, as PM, he will follow through on that. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Wilber Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 The amount of whining and complaining and smearing Liberals is unparalled on this board. And I don't get it. You cons are winning! Why the anger? Conservative anger likely wouldn't disappear even if Harper were to win a majority. Sure, they'll drink and party on election night but the anger will soon return. Look at US conservatives. They control the White House, Senate and Congress...but they're still angry. As for the majority of Canadians, i.e., those of us who are voting Liberal, NDP, BQ or Green, I suspect the entertainment value of Harper and his MPs will rapidly attenuate any lingering disappointment. The new social and religious conservative MPs, muzzled by Harper during the campaign, can be counted on to humiliate themselves. The Harper cabinet, replete with men of "integrity" like the backstabbing Peter MacKay and creationists like Stockwell Day, I'm sure won't disappoint. And how about the newly minted Quebec Conservative MPs? Will they be resigning in humiliation and disgrace at the same rate as they were when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister? And will they be just as "federalist" as Conservative MP Lucien Bouchard? Have they been screened by Harper as carefully as the BC Conservative candidate charged with multiple counts of smuggling? And how about the mainstream media? How long a honeymoon period will they allow Conservative MPs? No wonder Canadian conservatives will remain angry. That was one big problem with the Liberals, there was no ministerial responsibility. No one ever resigned voluntarily no matter what kind of scandal was in progress. Take a look at some of the things Mulroneyites resigned for. They seem trivial compared to some of the stuff that has happened lately that no Liberal has accepted responsibility for. Seems to me all the anger is on the Liberal side at the moment. Look at their campaign. Pure fear mongering and little substance. They have discovered that maybe they don't have a Divine right to rule and are having a tough time accepting it. Sorry folks, it will be the people of Canada who will decide if there is to be a change, not Liberals and Conservatives. Deal with it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
kimmy Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Norman: I've no idea what you are talking about re Rachael Marsden, obviously its a non starter and not worth air time, at least in Ontario LOL Rachel Marsden was a Simon Fraser University competitive swimmer who gained national notoriety by publicly accusing her coach of sexually harrassing her. Later... too late to save the coach's job or reputation, of course... it was revealed that she was actually an obsessive stalker who was fixated on her coach. I don't actually know what the link between Rachel Marsden and Gurmant Grewal is. Perhaps she has left athletics behind and is now stalking MPs. Why does he need to face down Cheryl Gallant? So far as I know she is very pro-life (as is Harper), and that's about the extent of her "problems". If she were a Liberal the press would be ignoring her as they do the very pro-life Liberals. But the Tories have been trying to keep her under wraps during the election to keep from aiding the Liberals big-scary-guy campaign on abortion and gay marriage. Gallant a loose cannon. We'll undoubtably hear from her after the election. Like it or not, Harper has won (is it too soon to say that?) this election by moderating his position on some social issues, including abortion. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions that have contributed greatly to this victory, he will have proven his critics right, the ones who said that the "new moderate Harper" can't be trusted. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions he has espoused during this campaign, he would be leading the Conservatives back out into the wilderness of Canadian politics. Harper is a pragmatist and he's accomplished something very important... I can't imagine that he wants to throw it onto the scrap-heap of history just for the sake of appeasing Cheryl Gallant and her corner of the party. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
scribblet Posted January 23, 2006 Report Posted January 23, 2006 Norman: I've no idea what you are talking about re Rachael Marsden, obviously its a non starter and not worth air time, at least in Ontario LOL Rachel Marsden was a Simon Fraser University competitive swimmer who gained national notoriety by publicly accusing her coach of sexually harrassing her. Later... too late to save the coach's job or reputation, of course... it was revealed that she was actually an obsessive stalker who was fixated on her coach. I don't actually know what the link between Rachel Marsden and Gurmant Grewal is. Perhaps she has left athletics behind and is now stalking MPs. Why does he need to face down Cheryl Gallant? So far as I know she is very pro-life (as is Harper), and that's about the extent of her "problems". If she were a Liberal the press would be ignoring her as they do the very pro-life Liberals. But the Tories have been trying to keep her under wraps during the election to keep from aiding the Liberals big-scary-guy campaign on abortion and gay marriage. Gallant a loose cannon. We'll undoubtably hear from her after the election. Like it or not, Harper has won (is it too soon to say that?) this election by moderating his position on some social issues, including abortion. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions that have contributed greatly to this victory, he will have proven his critics right, the ones who said that the "new moderate Harper" can't be trusted. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions he has espoused during this campaign, he would be leading the Conservatives back out into the wilderness of Canadian politics. Harper is a pragmatist and he's accomplished something very important... I can't imagine that he wants to throw it onto the scrap-heap of history just for the sake of appeasing Cheryl Gallant and her corner of the party. -k He and the party are done like dinner if he does reneg on this. However, what if someone, even a liberal puts forwared a private members bill? He can't stop it, and he's always said he'll have free votes, and so has Martin recently. This could be dicy. Thanks for the info. on Rachael Marsden, I did know she had some 'stalking' problems but obviously Norman has some inside info about Harper, Grewal and Rachael. Maybe she goes swimming with Grewal...oooooh Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
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.