Tories to Hire Separatist

[Figleaf]

Did anyone notice today that even the normally fellatial Globe and Mail editorial criticised this latest tory outrage as simply an effort smear the Liberals.

With Steve in charge, I suppose we can soon expect Layton and Dion to be subject to house arrest and their supporters 'disappeared'.

Okay I'll bite (no pun intended) what do you mean the G & M is 'fellatial'

It would be difficult to explain without overstepping the bounds of civility. Let's just say they usually kiss up to anything tory.

[Figleaf]

Wow. Dancer, would have thought you could tell the difference between a grammatical sentence and an incoherent string of digits and characters. Guess I was wrong.

FYI Forum Rules:

"POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. "

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

Reported.

just kidding ... someone had to say it.

[Michael Bluth]

It would be difficult to explain without overstepping the bounds of civility. Let's just say they usually kiss up to anything tory.

Hmmm, and fellatial wasn't overstepping the bounds of civility?

What is the thing that is usually kissed fellatially?

The Globe editorial page has taken umbrage on Harper and the Conservatives very often since they came to power.

[Figleaf]

It would be difficult to explain without overstepping the bounds of civility. Let's just say they usually kiss up to anything tory.

Hmmm, and fellatial wasn't overstepping the bounds of civility?

Right.

The Globe editorial page has taken umbrage on Harper and the Conservatives very often since they came to power.

Please provide a list of such cases.

[Michael Bluth]

The Globe editorial page has taken umbrage on Harper and the Conservatives very often since they came to power.

Please provide a list of such cases.

Here's ten.

Margaret Wente column January 18, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column February 13, 2007

Rick Salutin March 2, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 13, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 14, 2007

Rex Murphy column March 17, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 21, 2007

John Ibbitson column March 21, 2007

Rex Murphy column March 24, 2007

Margaret Wente column April 5, 2007

[Figleaf]

The Globe editorial page has taken umbrage on Harper and the Conservatives very often since they came to power.

Please provide a list of such cases.

Here's ten.

Margaret Wente column January 18, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column February 13, 2007

Rick Salutin March 2, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 13, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 14, 2007

Rex Murphy column March 17, 2007

Jeffrey Simpson column March 21, 2007

John Ibbitson column March 21, 2007

Rex Murphy column March 24, 2007

Margaret Wente column April 5, 2007

No, that won't do at all.

First, this list of names proves nothing -- what did they say in those columns? How about some links?

Second, these are columnists, tasked to give their own opinions. I'm talking about the newspaper's editorial stance.

[Michael Bluth]

No, that won't do at all.

First, this list of names proves nothing -- what did they say in those columns? How about some links?

Second, these are columnists, tasked to give their own opinions. I'm talking about the newspaper's editorial stance.

If you have a subscription it's easy enough to look up what they wrote. If you don't then providing links won't help.

Five columnists from a paper provide a pretty big spectrum of the opinions the paper presents to their readers.

Proved you wrong again in your attack mode approach. Read the columns and you'll realize your fellatial comment was wrong. The utter lack of class and childishness of the comment is self-evident.

One day you'll see the light.

[August1991]

I'm with Bluth. I think the G & M is anti-Harper. Why?

Urbanites buy/read the G & M, and urbanites don't vote "new Tory". The G & M knows its audience.

Second, the typical G & M journalist is a 100% social liberal. They only divide on fiscal questions.

Lastly, like all "high-end" newspapers, the G&M is in a frustrating downward spiral. Its readers go on-line and have the world. Why buy a paper G&M? (Not ecolo.) So, the G&M is more dramatic in its positions. It is trying to have an "edge" - and the only edge G&M journalists know is to be social liberal, 1960s iconoclast.

----

Returning to the OP, I'm still amazed about the different interpretation given to this nomination in Quebec and in ROC.

In Quebec, Harper has made a remarkably astute move - that has not gone unnoticed.

[jdobbin]

No, that won't do at all.

First, this list of names proves nothing -- what did they say in those columns? How about some links?

Second, these are columnists, tasked to give their own opinions. I'm talking about the newspaper's editorial stance.

I think the ten columnists mentioned also did countless anti-Liberal articles over the years as well.

Who was it that the Globe endorsed this past election?

[Michael Bluth]

I think the ten columnists mentioned also did countless anti-Liberal articles over the years as well.

Who was it that the Globe endorsed this past election?

It would be a lot easier for you to comment intelligently if you'd read the entire thread.

The Globe didn't fellate the Conservatives and never has. But that appears to be the case you are trying to argue for.

[gc1765]

I think the G & M is anti-Harper.

The same G & M that endorsed him in the election?

[August1991]

I think the G & M is anti-Harper.

The same G & M that endorsed him in the election?

Did you expect the G & M to endorse Paul "Gomery Commission" Martin? Or, Jack "Taliban" Layton? There are limits the G & M editorial will not go.

In the next federal election, I would expect a tortured, convoluted editorial in support of - surprise - Dion.

[Who's Doing What?]

Look out it is the Liberal main stream media out to get the CPC again. Hurry and get your tinfoil hats kiddies they be coming to get ya. They're gonna brainwash your children and turn them into little communists. lmao

I can understand calling a newspaper bias when it endorses a candidate, but saying it is bias against the candidate they endorsed is a bit backwards to say the least. You CPCers are funny.

[August1991]

Look out it is the Liberal main stream media out to get the CPC again.

Is this *scary, scary* redux? Inversed scary, scary? Anti-matter scary, scary?

I'm not sure that the G & M matters anymore: among movers & shakers or anyone else in English Canada. Everyone English seems to flip through the blogs to get opinion now.

[jdobbin]

I'm not sure that the G & M matters anymore: among movers & shakers or anyone else in English Canada. Everyone English seems to flip through the blogs to get opinion now.

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that people are moving to the Internet blogs for their Canadians political news. Is there any data on that?

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence that people are moving to the Internet blogs for their Canadians political news. Is there any data on that?

How about pollsters from blogs such as Calgary Grit and Captain's Quarter's being interviewed on the National or CTV News?

What about the fact that already popular political commentators, such as Paul Wells, Warren Kinsella and Norman Spector, put in valuable time and effort to update their blogs regularly.

[gc1765]

Did you expect the G & M to endorse Paul "Gomery Commission" Martin? Or, Jack "Taliban" Layton? There are limits the G & M editorial will not go.

In the next federal election, I would expect a tortured, convoluted editorial in support of - surprise - Dion.

If they were actually anti-Harper, then yes they would have endorsed either Paul "completely exonerated" Martin or Jack Layton. Why not, almost half the country supported these two parties. But of course, the G & M is not anti-Harper and that's why they endorsed him.

[Figleaf]

No, that won't do at all.

First, this list of names proves nothing -- what did they say in those columns? How about some links?

Second, these are columnists, tasked to give their own opinions. I'm talking about the newspaper's editorial stance.

If you have a subscription it's easy enough to look up what they wrote. If you don't then providing links won't help.

So you've proved nothing. Congrats.

Five columnists from a paper provide a pretty big spectrum of the opinions the paper presents to their readers.

Ten selected columns from five columnists over a year of columns tells you nothing about the editorial stance of a newspaper.

[Figleaf]

The Globe didn't fellate the Conservatives and never has.

You can't be serious? What country do you live in?

I don't want to get hung up on the any particular terminology here, but the Globe is so tory it bleeds blue.

Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

[Michael Bluth]

If they were actually anti-Harper, then yes they would have endorsed either Paul "completely exonerated" Martin or Jack Layton. Why not, almost half the country supported these two parties. But of course, the G & M is not anti-Harper and that's why they endorsed him.

They aren't anti-Harper or pro-Harper.

Remember, this tangent got started with Figleaf's classess, and homophobic, terming of the G & M's imaginary deferential editorial stance towards the Conservative Government.

Ten selected columns from five columnists over a year of columns tells you nothing about the editorial stance of a newspaper.

Three months. It appears your case is so weak that you need to resort to out and out lies.

Pick any domestic political columnists from the Globe I may have left out.

[geoffrey]

Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

Used to be the values of the Liberals before they became wanna-be European socialists.

[ScottSA]

...the Globe is so tory it bleeds blue.

Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

I don't suppose you notice the irony here?

[jdobbin]

Interesting column in the Ottawa Citizen here.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...74-5d27a52e4d39

Can we just call it the David Herle inquiry? The senior Paul Martin adviser and former supremo at Earnscliffe Strategy Group is clearly the target of the blamelessly objective review of federal polling practices launched by Canada's New Government.

The only question, really, is why Prime Minister Stephen Harper is so determined to defeat Martin. Didn't that already happen?

Since the last election, in fact, Martin has moved on; Herle has moved on (to related professional pastures); the country has moved on. Why can't the prime minister?

Indeed, Harper's campaign to replace Martin has been so successful that his Conservative party is now almost indistinguishable from its predecessor -- when it comes to using public money for political ends.

And why is present polling excluded?

[Figleaf]

...the Globe is so tory it bleeds blue.

Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

I don't suppose you notice the irony here?

In fact, no. Go ahead and elucidate.

[ScottSA]

...the Globe is so tory it bleeds blue.

Tax cutting, pro-Israel, classist, economic reductionist, soft on civil rights, deferential to authority ... you name it.

I don't suppose you notice the irony here?

In fact, no.

I suspected not.