gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : The untold story of the 2011 election: Chapter 5

Sun, 8 May 2011 17:50:27 +0000

He claimed to be in possession of a report prepared by a ‘U.S. source,’ outlining the activities and whereabouts of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in the weeks and months leading to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 Haha, my goodness. You'd think he was Bin Laden's lieutenant or somethi.... wait a second...

Macleans.ca : The untold story of the 2011 election: Chapter 5

Sun, 8 May 2011 17:48:51 +0000

I do think, I really really do think, Sparky! I mean, the real untold story? I feel like an idiot for reading the fake untold story this whole time. Thanks a lot PW!

Macleans.ca : Hey look: In which the appeal to Quebecers' sovereigntist instincts doesn't work

Sat, 7 May 2011 20:02:49 +0000

Not that many care, but for those interested in the phenomenon of separatism and sovereignty movements within relatively stable states, the Scottish version of the Bloc won a majority government in the Parlamaid na h-Alba. In a mixed-member proportional representation system, no less.

Macleans.ca : The untold story of the 2011 election: Chapter 3

Sat, 7 May 2011 19:00:52 +0000

My election-catch-up meanderings brought me across a Liberal Party video proving once and for all that Stephen Harper aired an ad that kinda resembled a Tim Pawlenty (ed note - tea-partier, eeks!) ad in everything but content. The top comment, with no less than 57 up thumbs, queried: "And how is this vid going to help me with understanding what changes the liberal party is about?!" Given that all academics agree on the preeminent probative value of anecdotal evidence, particularly anecdotal evidence found in YouTube comment boards, I believe Mr. grenier70 has definitively confirmed the thrust of PW's thesis.

Macleans.ca : 'Get a better messenger'

Sat, 7 May 2011 18:25:17 +0000

Try gazing at myself in two mirrors, Blues. The first one became exhausted capturing so much pure brilliance, so I decided to lighten its load. A sign of my unending compassion and innovative problem solving skills, you wonder? That's for others to say...

Macleans.ca : 'Get a better messenger'

Sat, 7 May 2011 18:22:35 +0000

You make it sound like those are mutually exclusive.

Macleans.ca : The untold story of the 2011 election: Chapter 4

Sat, 7 May 2011 17:49:32 +0000

What is "de facto paean" prison slang for?

Macleans.ca : 'Get a better messenger'

Sat, 7 May 2011 17:05:37 +0000

Hey everyone. Sorry I've been really busy for the past year or so, but I'm back for now. Hope I didn't miss anything. So when are those Liberals going to bring down this woefully anti-democratic, economy-destroying Harper minority already? Bet your bottom dollar that the Red Machine will make some significant inroads, maybe even a minority government, as long as the NDP doesn't get in their way (snicker).

Macleans.ca : What of that weekend in Toronto?

Sat, 4 Sep 2010 00:08:34 +0000

I've said many times that in this time period, and in this society I'm 64. Wait, do we have you on loan from another society in another period? Because that would explain so much.

Macleans.ca : What of that weekend in Toronto?

Sat, 4 Sep 2010 00:06:30 +0000

I'm in my mid twenties, thank you very much. And I assumed Sir Francis was older, given his penchant for scolding me when I've been behaving particularly childish and for correcting my grammar, which I swear he does on purpose just to embarrass me in front of company. Now, if he'd just lose his temper more often and make inappropriate jokes to my female friends when he was drunk, he'd be the online father I never had.

Macleans.ca : What Stephen Harper has in common with Glenn Beck

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 23:57:57 +0000

Me and PW are the most celebrated spokesmodels for the vocal left, certainly. And personally, I don't think Harper has been "extreme" in any real sense, certainly not as he's often portrayed by the vocal left, me and PW. But that doesn't mean he's not polarizing, which I don't even think is up for debate. His entire political strategy is based on polarizing the electorate, which I think he'd confirm if you asked him after a Tom Collins. And again, people like Emily think that the guy with an "adopt a kitty" feature on his website is likely to shut down Parliament and intern his political opponents for slaughter. He's polarizing. I don't even think that's inherently a bad thing to be polarizing, depending on the context - sometimes polarization is necessary to appreciably separate the right thinking from the wrong. He doesn't do extreme things, things outside the bounds of reasonable, polite political discourse in this country. He just does moderate things stupidly, dishonestly and vindictively. I support many Harper policies, certainly more than I support any other party's, I just hate the way he goes about promoting and defending them. His policies aren't unreasonable (although they're often a little tax-and-spend Liberal-y for my tastes), but his behaviour is often deliberately petulant and generally atrocious. That's the problem.

Macleans.ca : What of that weekend in Toronto?

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 23:47:01 +0000

The Martin regime was broadly Red Tory Really? The socially liberal, abortion and gay marriage for all, dispense with s.33, it's the Charter stupid, closer economic, military and security ties with the States, lets go to Kandahar, G20 or bust, Paul Martin? Centre-right, sure, but Red Tory, in the traditional sense? Maybe I'm not terribly clear on your political philosophy then, my mistake. Also, I'll admit that WLMK's tone appears marginally different than our current Prime Minister, but I must say I'm distressed that he lacked even a measure of the Harperian moral courage required to chalk up a disagreement with a political foe to the fact that his opponent was clearly a Hitler-loving, troop-hating pussy.

Macleans.ca : At the risk of applying logic to the PM's latest fixation (UPDATED)

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 23:41:03 +0000

All of those points are fair enough (except the Bloc one, I think, as I note below) but they would require a rather informed, analytical voter with a sound grasp of logic and time to spend working through the issues and arguments, which I think amount to a precious few. I think the people like us who spend the time to actually pay attention to the nonsense that goes on in Parliament, due to some sort of psychiatric affliction, tend to assume everyone pays as close attention. And I'm not suggesting he'll harvest "many" votes with this strategy, depending on your definition of "many", just saying there is a logic to it of which your original comment appeared skeptical. As for the Bloc, the point isn't that they'd be "in" the coalition, it's that they could either extract concessions for their support both before the agreement was made and throughout the process ('oh, by the way, if you don't go along with this private members bill, we're gonna stop supporting you'). You can't contract out of your parliamentary autonomy to vote as you'd like, so given their penchant for breaking up the country, I'm not sure their allegiance to a temporary coalition would be set in stone unless they were assured they were getting something out of it. As such, there is always the concern that the Bloc would wield influence even if they're not technically members of the coalition. Kinda like how the NDP did with Martin on an ad hoc basis, except formalized.

Macleans.ca : What of that weekend in Toronto?

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:34:09 +0000

Truth. Hey, you seem like you'd be kinda old, in that you fervently support a political ideology that hasn't really been popular since the early 20th century: so, when did this happen? Could you ever have a rational discussion in Canada about controversial political issues that lend themselves to rhetorical absolutism? Like could you take a "grey" position without being pasted as "black" or "white" depending on which side you were marginally closer to? Were we ever serious, and are we less so now? And is it all Harpers fault, or just mostly?

Macleans.ca : At the risk of applying logic to the PM's latest fixation (UPDATED)

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:54:42 +0000

Not if you're paying attention, no. But if you're thinking in terms of "conservative generally spend less money than socialists", and keep in mind that these socialists never want the stimulus to stop and want universal daycare, universal pharmacare, universal homecare, universal dogcare and universal haircare, then it's infinitely more terrifying.

Macleans.ca : What of that weekend in Toronto?

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:42:58 +0000

Sentence reformulation verb confusion error in the last line, Wherry.

Macleans.ca : At the risk of applying logic to the PM's latest fixation (UPDATED)

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:35:12 +0000

I don't even think he's speaking in code. He's saying "a vote for the NDP, Liberals or Bloc is a vote for ALL of them". I think he's hoping that political aversions are more salient than political attractions. So, a fiscal conservative might be OK with voting for the Liberals, but hate the idea of having the NDP in government. A hardcore federalist might be OK with voting for the Liberals or NDP, but hate the idea of the Bloc having a say in the direction of the country. Out west especially, a populist might be OK with voting for the NDP, but hate the idea of voting for the Liberals. If you witness the "discussions" at Macleans.ca, there's a whole lot more anti-Harper, anti-Conservative, anti-Ignatieff, anti-Liberal, anti-NDP, anti-Bloc comments then there are pro-Anything comments. In short, it's not Harper's dumbest idea.

Macleans.ca : What Stephen Harper has in common with Glenn Beck

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:26:36 +0000

Oh, I just had to get that shot in. I have no intention of going further. I was just trying to save David, who is a legendary Canadian conservative blogging stalwart - the Maders of this world made it ok to be a Canadian conservative online, although by no means advisable. It was clear that he wasn't familiar with the odious character he was dealing with, as evidenced by his attempts to converse reasonably and logically, so I basically stepped into the line of fire. I'm a hero, is the point.

Macleans.ca : At the risk of applying logic to the PM's latest fixation (UPDATED)

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 20:14:53 +0000

It seems to me that he's trying to frighten the good portion of the Canadian electorate that considers themself "fiscally conservative, socially progressive", which is a self-description you hear quite often despite the fact that the two motivations are quite frequently at odds with one another. Basically, I think he thinks that if he can link the Liberals with the NDP, anyone who considers themselves "fiscally conservative" that would often vote for the Liberals (the Blue Liberal Martin-Manley crowd) will be terrified of the idea of "Jack Layton - Minister of Finance and Ballooning Spending" will hold their nose and vote CPC. Any collaterol patriotism points he can get among the rather small but hardcore non-Quebec-nationalists federalists in Quebec would be welcome. Personally, I'm fiscally communist and socially reactionary, so I have no political home.

Macleans.ca : What Stephen Harper has in common with Glenn Beck

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 18:35:08 +0000

You're not getting it. Harper is polarizing. He's deliberately polarizing in his politics and his very existence seems to beget the Emily's of this world who actually think he's the next Hitler, Mussolini or Pol Pot. He's both actively and passively polarizing, and by all accounts likes himself that way. And being polarizing isn't necessarily or always a bad thing. But PW didn't suggest that Harper is the only Canadian politician who would lower themselves to personal attacks. Nor did he suggest that the entire decline of political discourse in the country is wholly attributable to Harper's moral flaws or efforts to actively polarize the electorate, while the other parties and leaders were just trying to be amiable and polite, as you seem to be accusing. If he did say that, your pointing out that "Liberals do it too" would be an effective rebuttal. But he didn't, so it's not.