gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : No country for good men

Thu, 5 May 2011 00:39:31 +0000

Holy crap, the haters are out tonight. I'll just note that: "Having seen how Michael Ignatieff was treated, can any reasonably intelligent and ambitious person be ever expected to go into national politics?" ...makes sense whatever one thinks of Ignatieff the politician. It certainly makes politics about as appealing as a muddy kindergarten class to me. And as much as I gnashed my teeth at Ignatieff's political chops, it's nice to see him appreciated here as an accomplished and valuable man, not just a failed Karl Rove wannabe.

Macleans.ca : What now? (II)

Thu, 5 May 2011 00:24:51 +0000

"When the time comes, hopefully in a few short years, we will be looking to Conservatives to accept their replacement by a fearlessly (if prudently) progressive government, without raising existential issues about the country or our democracy." Shyeah. When the time comes, Harper will burn this motherf*cker down before he'll turn over the keys to some Progressive. Godwin's Law will weep before the onslaught of attack ads and Parliament will be prorogued until the ink fades on the writ. Is there something about the Globe that encourages such denial of reality? Maybe the water coolers are contaminated.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 02:20:29 +0000

Ah, the intersection of racism and political expediency.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 02:19:22 +0000

Read it again, dumbass. I said that the Cadman case fell short of standards for actual evidence, and would be damning only by your ridiculously low standards. Honestly, you should at least re-read your own stuff before hitting "submit". You might have fewer Nike abrasions on the back of your own throat.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 02:15:01 +0000

Ah, the "news you watched" didn't include the word "allegedly"? I guess that meets your high standard of proof, eh?

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 02:13:59 +0000

Ah, just what this situation needs: more innuendo. Got a name for that councillor? Got a link to the quote? And even if you do, is that quote any more than innuendo? How was is "clear" that the place was dodgy? Is there any evidence that Layton got any more than a massage? Put up or shut up, all of you. It's easy to inflate a story, it's very difficult to provide any actual proof.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 02:01:59 +0000

Heh - if your standards held any bearing in the real world, Harper, "Senator" Finley and Tom Flanagan would be in jail for trying to bribe Chuck Cadman. Fortunately, responsible adults have higher standards than that.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:47:18 +0000

Like I said, self-awareness isn't exactly forthcoming, is it?

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:46:37 +0000

Really? Can you provide a quote in which the officer (if his notes are accurate) described Layton as being "in a compromising position"? Direct quote, please.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:20:00 +0000

"He was in what was actually a whore house..." See, here's an excellent opportunity to employ the new word you've learned, "allegedly".

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:18:46 +0000

If you understand the meaning of "in a compromising position", then you'll understand why you're engaging in baseless innuendo. I'm not getting my hopes up. Is there anybody there who could explain it to you?

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:15:20 +0000

Dennis_F, above: "I don't understand people who come on here as insulting and ignorant as you do and believe you're actually doing yourself any favours, or displaying any shred of credibility." Dennis_F, just now: "In other words, you can't respond with facts or substance, so you have to engage in these personal attacks." If you ever achieve basic self-awareness, you're going to disappear up your own ass and never be heard from again. Got my fingers crossed.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 01:07:20 +0000

"A man who wants to be prime minister was caught naked and in a compromising position during a sting in a bawdy house, and there are no questions to ask? Come on." Oh I agree, there are question to ask. For instance, do you know the meaning of "baseless innuendo"? Have you ever used the word "allegedly" in a sentence?

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 00:49:27 +0000

Boy, for a "marginal" story, you sure are intent on inflating it as hard as you can.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: Questions of character

Sun, 1 May 2011 00:46:35 +0000

Anon, meet Dennis_F. Obtuse is sort of his specialty.

Macleans.ca : The NDP surge, and what’s at stake in this election

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:00:33 +0000

"Much of the resistance to a Conservative majority is based on the perception that it’s something to be feared. But it would be foolish to let ephemeral, poorly founded fears stampede us into an embrace with positive risks to our prosperity." Shorter: Don't vote for Layton over baseless fears of Harper, you should vote for Harper over baseless fears of Layton.

Macleans.ca : Putting the NDP in power would be “devastating,” Harper says

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:44:21 +0000

"Bob Rae/Stalin" FAIL

Macleans.ca : 'A confident new Parliament'

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:34:27 +0000

Margaret Wente is writing the editorials now.

Macleans.ca : This woman seems very concerned

Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:04:16 +0000

"...the only alternative to the F-35 is no airforce at all." Bullsh*t. When the current fleet of CF-18s was procured, we were at the height of the Cold War. The world has changed, but Canada seems to be racing to replace those planes with their modern equivalent. Are they the right planes for our current and coming challenges? This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink our military and make sure its configuration makes sense. You jump to the conclusion that no other aircraft could meet our requirements, but we haven't stated our requirements. Procurement 101: know what you need.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The daring Mr. Harper

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:01:53 +0000

I fail to see the relevance.