New MoonBat... Sorry Zorph...

Been having a discussion with a fella named Zorpheous off and on recently and really thought he may be worthy of paying attention to. Today I changed my mind and decided that he was worth exposing. I've left the original thread intact with the exception of his last response. I've included my ponts below each of his paragraphs. My complete assessment follows at the bottom.

Face it Richard, Canadians are fiscally Conservative (re, balance budgets, balanced spending, saving for a rainy day) and Socially Liberal (PROVIDING it governed by the first point and the programs work). The fact that Canadians are falling into line with Harper and CPC says more about the CPC party and the leadership than it does Canadians. Why? Because, when given the choice between the Liberals and CPC, Canadians view the CPC as the worse choice for Canada. So the basic problem is the message from the CPC isn’t selling with Canada, and they don’t trust the messenger either, and now we see Harper flip-flopping towards the center and reversing his policy stance on Healthcare? Just the lame ass Democrats down in the States. Zorpheous Homepage 04.30.05 - 3:07 pm #

That my new friend is the eastern attitude that we need to overcome. That attitude is why the east will continue to allow us to get screwed. It's a bloody shame.
Richard Evans Homepage 04.30.05 - 3:31 pm #

That is you own failing, not ours Richard, you write the message, select the messanger and then blame the listenner for not agreeing with you. See the Democrats down south for how this lame blame game played out.You simply can not respresent just YOUR interest, but you must also represent the maority interest of all Canadians.You claim you are getting screwed, so Richard in a clear and intelligent mannor, explain how we are "screwing" you? What as Ontario done to you that is so bad, and I make no appolgy for having greater voice in government when we have the greatest share of the population (that's the way it works)
Zorpheous Homepage 04.30.05 - 4:28 pm #

The list is long... NEP, National Wheat Board, Rejection of Elected Senators, Kyoto, provincial transfer schemes, removal/consolidation of military bases, language laws, gross overtaxation, stifiling business, hypocracy on healthcare and failure to appropriately deal with BSE are some that quickly come to mind. You know, reading your words has made me come to a realization. The attitude of the folks out east won't change. You're right. Ontario has the population and subsequently the power. As long as you keep getting the goodies you'll keep the Librals in power. You'll justify anything they do as long as they goodies keep comming.I'm going to have a few beer and figure out whether or not you've just created a seperatist.
Richard Evans Homepage 04.30.05 - 5:01 pm #

Richard as far as Kyoto goes, try think more than five feet and five minutes infront of your face. Kyoto, is a huge business opertunity for those who look further ahead than their own present. This Richard, is why people like myself lead, and people like yourself complain.

Zorph seems to think that paying 3rd world countries for "green credits" with absolutely no measurable benefit to the environment is a good thing. The Liberals have comitted 10 Billion dollars which in the real world means far more. That's tax money that the general populace will have to shell out. That's socialist "new world" thinking at it's most extreme. Steering the vessel onto the rocks is not leadership Zorph, it's suicide. Leaders like you are the reason that I'm speaking out the way I am.

Elected Senators, hey Richard, Ontario agrees with you. Method of election should be debated, I think a Prov. election/appointment system would be best, and each Prov have equal representation (two or three per)

That's right, elected Senators. Ontario agrees? Good. Then why hasn't it happened? I'll tell you why. It hasn't happened because the government elected by the ontairio people refuses to add checks and balances to the system.

Gross over taxation, yes and no Richard.

Are we not the highest taxed of all the G-7 nations? Are we getting "bang" for our buck? If the answer's anything other than a resounding yes, we're grossly over taxed.

Healthcare? Guess you missed Harper's flip flop from the Right to the Center and then one more flip flop to left today. I suggest you hold the fire to his feet over his new found "Liberal" views.

Whether Harper is flip-flopping or not is completely inacurate and irrelevant. The facts are that if any of the western provinces try to adjust their health care service provisions the feds smack them down. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that the PM himself uses a private physician or that there are numerous private clinics in Quebec that operate without any hassle at all from the Liberal government. That is HYPOCRACY. And no, don't go thinking that it's a "prime minister thing" because PM had his current arrangement long before he became PM squared.
We have illustrated several times in the "moonbat posts" how the lib-left will use prophanities when they can't make a valid argument, in this instance our subject has taken the "governments hypocracy on health care" and pointed instead to imaginary hypocracy on the part of a different individual. For the record, Harper was only restating the party's position on health care. Most of the lib-left assume that because an institution, that happens to support Conservative values releases a report, that said report is automaticaly the platform of the Conservative party. This seems to be as a result of beliving lib-left spin that they watch on television.

BSE was dealt with, but long term desease take time to clear themselves out. Hey Ottawa could hav order you guys to destroy all the cattle, problem solved. And hey what has Ralph been doing about solving the problem? Or are you bitching about the USE blocking our beef? If that's the case, take it with the neo-clowns down south.

BSE was not adequately dealt with. The federal government had plenty of oportunity to make nice with the US and get the ban lifted. Instead they chose to keep up with their Bush bashing which soiled diplomatic relations. The border was very close to being opened until Martin decided to "flip-flop" on the missile defense issue. Which was dumb because we were involved with BMD anyway through NORAD. The US is scouting radar site locations as I type. For the record, It's the Moonbats in the US that are taking the protectionist stance. Have a look at Hillary and the other dems supporting the ban.

Language Laws? Richard if you bitch any more you will need a bra. Jesus you sound like a liberal Democrat from the USE.

He's finally showing his true colors here. Derogatory comments in place of an argument. Well done zorph, that's a prize winning post over at the blagh. It is becoming ever more clear that bilingualism is one of the worst things to happen to this country because of it's divisive nature. Is the francaphone argument not mostly about language? Think about it.

Oh and I love you paper thin commitment to Canada, is this the type of leadership we should look up to?
Zorpheous Homepage 04.30.05 - 7:21 pm #

Paper thin commitment to Canada? Zorph isin't aware that I have the maple leaf tattoed on my right shoulder. Lets ask the readers about my commitment... Pipe up readers!

If one would scroll up right now they would notice a great number of points from my list that zorph couldn't/wouldn't bring up.

Zorph comes on like the "arrogant idot" we've been told to expect out of the east. Until today I was thinking that it was just a myth and that they weren't really like that. I'm hoping he's a rarity. He's been completely condescending with his attitude that "they (he) called the shots and we just have to deal with it". It is noted in one of my posts that I was considering becomming a sepratist. I've changed my mind. I've decided to keep the pressure on until people like zorph can see beyond their narsiscitic selves. Until the moonbats are all seen as the selfish parasites they are...

A conservative is one who thinks about his country. A left-winger is one who thinks about himself and uses his country for his own satisfaction. I know which I choose to be.

Another Musing...

What do you think would happen if Harper were able to turn to the Liberals and media and say:

"Yes, we have formalized a relationship with the BQ/PQ. We have done more in a year than the Liberals have in the past 12 in terms of national unity. We have a seat at the table. We have a written guarantee that there will not be a separation referendum provided that we restore the provincial powers that have been stolen through decades of Liberal rule. In addition to Quebec, the Governments of BC, Alberta, Ontario and the Maritimes have also agreed in principle. The Liberals can talk about keeping the country together but their record tells a completely different story. Maintaining the status quo has resulted in an uprising of the separatist movement in Quebec as well as a growing separatist movement in Alberta. The Liberals can talk about keeping the country together. We're actually doing it."

What would happen?

More Polls Released

The first one comes from the Completely "objective" Toronto Star. It's consistent with yesterday's polls which isn't surprising considering the source. LPC at 32.5 and CPC at 30.5 nationally.

The second poll comes from Canwest/Global and tells a slightly different story. Of the 4 we've seen this week it's the only poll with the Conservatives ahead. LPC at 30 and the CPC at 33 nationally.

I have to admit that I spent the majority of yesterday refusing to believe that the Canadian public was dumb enough to keep the Liberals in power. Today I'm on the fence.

Looking at the pollsters/sponsors involved with the first three I know the results are questionable. The fourth shows that there's a statistical dead heat though this time in favor of the Conservatives.

All in all, there seems to have been a drop in support for our heroes.

I've got a bit of a theory and would appreciate some help with developing it:

The Liberals are gaining mileage with the idea that the Conservatives and Bloc are going to tear the country apart. Would it not be prudent for the Bloc to clearly state that it is the status quo that is doing that and possibly sign a contract with the Conservatives stating clearly that there would be "No Separation referendum should the Conservative party win a majority." Quebec would have to get something out of the deal as well. Guaranteed negotiations on the restoration of provincial powers may be something that they'd be interested in. It could be called the "Canada Contract."

I don't see how the Liberals could spin the idea that there would be "no separation in exchange for restoration of provincial powers"... But then, If I could see the future I'd be a wealthy man right now.

UPDATE: I Call Bullshit! [SQUARED]

A new poll performed for CTV and the Globe and Mail claims that the Liberals and Conservatives are in a dead heat.

Second poll released by GPC appears to confirm results of first.

I still call BULLSHIT!

The first problem I have is that the poll was performed for CTV and the Globe and Mail. Both have shown a bias toward the Liberals in the recent past.

The (new) second problem I have is that the second poll was conducted by an organization that provided stats for the botched gun registry and is loaded with " former premiers, cabinet ministers, senior bureaucrats and political advisors." They are a firm that "specialize in strategic communications, government relations and opinion research. And we’re good at what we do." I'll bet they are. They're an outfit with aparent leanings toward the left (page 25) in international political affairs as well. They're an outfit that thought it would be neat to all of a sudden try their hand at political polling which is questionable seeing that their website says they have considerable experience with it. It's also an outfit that has had big problems previously. Oh, did I also mention that they are an organization that was awarded contracts through the public works department?

Would you call me a cynic if I suggested that these polls were simply Liberal spin? Think about it. Would it not be to the Liberals advantage and completely within their capabilities, to jigger the results? If you can show people that having a temper tantrum is useless do they not resign to hopelessness and give up? It worked that way with my kids. Do they not see us as children?
Does it make sence that these new numbers would come from these reletively obscure sources at this time and be completely off base from other recent polls?

When are the next ipsos and decima polls due to come out?

Thank you Kate for providing "pinging" etiquette instruction as opposed to beating me senseless.

Joe's Post Continued (MoonBat Outreach)

Continued fromyesterday's adventure. This one is "Outreach" in it's purest form. It's also one of the best examples of "sloppy lib-left thinking" that I've ever encountered.

Sounds like another outreach moment...

Hi Joe. Wow, you sure type big. It's interesting to see that you use google as your homepage. Seeing that you don't have a home of your own, why don't you surf over to my page and we'll see if I can't show you the light. That is if you're up to a little debate with a meat-eating troll. I'll even give you your own post... Richard Evans Homepage 04.27.05 - 10:45 pm #

Or are ya CHICKEN?
Richard Evans Homepage 04.27.05 - 11:05 pm #

[As a matter of fact, I am egging them on. They’re at their most humorous when they’re fired up.]

Hey Gretchen, Check this out...
http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/...anch- 101320.php
NeoCon Crusher Homepage 04.28.05 - 12:00 am #

[They’re looking at a satellite image of the President’s ranch in Texas. I’m curious to know why NeoCon Crusher is complaining about an infringement of Civil Liberties while he’s looking at the President’s ranch. That seems odd to me.]

Isn't that nice Crusher. Dumbya gets all the luxeries of life while his own troops don't even get armour. Sad.
Richard, trolling and then baiting is a really sad way to get blog traffic, dude. It's transparent and
silly. Gretchen Homepage 04.28.05 - 12:43 am #

[My response is below because I didn’t want to break the continuity of their posts.]

"Or are ya CHICKEN?"
Interesting how these dumbfucks always end up in the health care system {they don't even want} with their rotten arteries and heart disease begging for the medical system for a few more years
so they can see their grandkids grow-up. Well, boo-hoo-hoo is all I can say to that. Get smart or get sick. What do I care?? I'll be paying for it when your bacon and hamburger diet decides to kill you. That's the way it works in this country, the strong provide for the weak when they need it.

[I love how the lefties always resort to name calling when making an argument. What is it that makes him think that Conservatives don’t want a health care system? It’s a fact that we need health care. I’ll expand on the health care issue shortly. It seems to me that Joe is equating all illness to the consumption of meat. That’s a pretty broad brush Joe. Do you have data to back that claim up?]

If some dumbfuck kills himself prematurely because he can't follow a sensible diet, I pay for it (along with all the other Canadians). That's the way we do things here. If you want to live in a place where they throw the sick on the streets to die ignored and alone, feel free to move to Florida or California. The climate is better there too.

[Again with the name calling. Does that really add weight to an argument? Any Dietician I’ve ever met has encouraged sensible diets based on the food guides published by the Canadian and US departments of health. Is Joe saying that all of these people are wrong to include meat within their guidelines? Again does he have data to support that claim?

In order to bolster his argument Joe has included an irrelevant and inaccurate reference to having a bunch of sick and dead people on the streets in the US. Lefties do this in order to gain emotional buy-in to their readers. The idea is that if they can pull on your heart-strings on an unrelated issue they can carry that same sympathy back to their original point. They aren’t usually so transparent though.]

I bet this lunkhead pumps his kids full of refined sugar too. You just keep eating meat and sugar and we'll keep on paying for it. Keep loading your kids full of toxic levels of sugar and artificial growth hormones from the beef (while at the same time, complaining about the socialist healthcare system - thumbs up to conservative responsibility). Refined sugar is natural. It grows
on trees... or something. Artificial growth hormones are natural! D'oh!

[Wow, this one’s loaded. What Joe doesn’t understand is that I’m a Health and Safety Specialist. Nor does he understand that too much of ANYTHING is toxic. Lefties use words like toxic without providing context in order to appeal to people’s basic instincts. This process, again, generates emotional buy-in to their arguments. Once thay buy-in is gained, they don’t have to work as hard to support their argument.]

That's the way they always talk to smokers in this country, isn't it? When it's something they like, it's all 'natural' and necessary for their survival. They're all a bunch of goddamn hypocrites.

[I have no idea what Joe’s trying to say here. If someone figures it out please leave a comment.]

For the record, artificial growth hormones are not 'natural' and shouldn't be eaten by anyone.

[Now this one’s interesting because it speaks directly to the hypocrisy Joe referenced above. Those on the left promote genetic manipulation of embryo’s and fetus’s and yet scream if a wheat crop is "altered" to maximize the yield which in turn goes to feed the hungry that they seem to care so much about. That sounds like hypocrisy to me Joe.]

Conservatives don't like social programs until they can't live without them. Some of those conservatives apparently have crappy little blogs which they try to market for blog traffic through trolling, baiting and flaming. They are interesting creatures. On occassion, I like to poke them with a stick and study them. Joe Chip Homepage 04.28.05 - 2:13 am #

[Quite to the contrary Joe. Conservatives don’t like government meddling and bureaucracy. Notice how Joe again feels the need to resort to derogatory comments in the place of a legitimate argument. Are there any Conservative bloggers out there who have had the pleasure of Joe’s pointy stick? Is he lying about that to try to improve his position within the herd? I know for sure that he’s reluctant to place comments here so I’ll have to assume the same with other blogs
On health care: Joe seems completely bent out of shape with the fact that he has to pay for the healthcare of those terrible meat-eaters and yet seems to be against allowing private healthcare where said meat-eaters can pay for their own care. It would appear that Joe wants complete control exercised over our lives where we are changed to fit into his mould. Is that not fascism in it’s purest form?]

I'm a meat eating troll, and I highly reccommend The Green Lantern. I also support and admire groups like ALF, for the most part, and can't stand Ted Nugent. I like the way Joseph Cambell described the Jains in one of his talks. The Jains were extreme vegetarians. They wouldn't pick fruit, they would wait for it to drop from the trees. As a result, Campbell used to say, there are
very few Jains around today. I am the first to admit my carniverous behavior is
akin to an addiction. Richard's behavior is akin to an addiction, too, and he's not getting enough of the attention he craves. I didn't even go to his home page.

SJS 04.28.05 - 3:30 am #

[It’s not an addiction so much as a new calling. As noted within this post, I don’t need these individuals to visit my site in order to make an example of them. That’s the whole idea behind OUTREACH!]

"I'm a meat eating troll"
You don't seem like a troll. In Canada, we have a lot of conservative types trying to define health in their own terms with no desire for dialogue.

[It’s strange for Joe to take this position seeing that I’ve given him every opportunity for debate. As a side note, they have banned me from posting comments over at the "lantern". Could Joe please explain exactly who it is that is avoiding debate?]

The way meat is being mass-produced now is unfortunately allowing for all-kinds of unnatural toxins to be consumed by the public without their knowledge. This is dangerous and irresponsible but we all understand that the profit motives of capitialism don't abide by the ethics of social responsibility and so the shitbags that profit off of slaughterhouses would rather not modify their production standards.

[Joe is a gift that just keeps on giving. Thanks Joe! It would be interesting to see if there are any MS/GC data showing exactly what compounds are found in meat for sale at our favorite grocery store. I’m not thinking that there is any. If anyone knows please provide some links inside. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think Joe knows either. He knows how to call names though.

Joe doesn’t seem to understand capitalism either. Capitalism is based on buying and selling items. If those selling a commodity kill their customers with that commodity there won’t be any customers left. Capitalists have a vested interest in keeping their customers alive. This is the same argument that nails the lefties in regards to logging. The loggers have a vested interest in appropriate practices and reforestation because failure to do so would result in having the loggers put themselves out of business.]

Crazy, leftist weirdos will once again have to start a social movement so that the self-righteous, conservative dumbfucks can have clean food to feed their children.
All in all, that about sums it up. Joe Chip
Homepage 04.28.05 - 4:45 am #

[Yes Joe, that about sums it up. You’ve shown us how the lefties debate without facts. You’ve shown us how lefties resort to name calling and appealing to emotion in the absence of facts. You’ve shown us that you lack a serious understanding of Conservatives.]

SJS...you are not a troll. Joe, you are my hero
Let's let Richard have his sad little "troll for traffic"-a-thon. Just try not to get sucked up in his negativity. He's a sad case.
Gretchen Homepage 04.28.05 - 9:00 am #

[Our new friend Gretchen is idolizing Joe for his misdirected arguments. What does that say about Gretchen? By doing this is she showing us that lefties tend to think alike or that she can’t think for herself?]

Can I be a crazy leftist weirdo, at least? I kinda like that better.
SJS 04.28.05 - 9:53 am #

"Richard, trolling and then baiting is a really sad way to get blog traffic, dude. It's transparent and silly."
Fair enough. You need to understand though why I'm really here. I'm not trolling for your traffic. I'm performing a "service" for my own traffic by taking your arguments apart and showing the lib-left for what it really is. I'm exposing your hypocrisy and subversive methods. I'm showing the world what the lib-left really stands for. You individuals are being held up as an example of a serious problem with our society. Based on the posts I see here this morning, you're going to provide me with material for quite a while.
Richard Evans Homepage 04.28.05 - 12:03
pm #

As noted previously, the "lantern" has banned me from posting comments. I guess they didn’t like having their ideas challenged which is simply something that we’re going to have to accept from the lib-left. They hate it when their bubbles are made to expand.

Chretien Legacy Continues

An interesting article this morning talking about how former PM JC is to attend a 7 day celebration of gay culture in the city of brotherly love. (Why does that seem so fitting and yet so sad?) He's taking two of our mounties with him. They will be attending in full dress uniforms.

"But tomorrow night in the city of brotherly love, Mr. Chrétien -- accompanied by two RCMP officers decked out in their red serge dress uniforms -- will receive an award as a global role model from a gay and lesbian activist group, the Equality Forum, for his support of same-sex marriage.
On Sunday, the two Mounties -- one male, one female on assignment with the government-supported Canadian Tourism Commission -- will accompany Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, the first gay couple to be married in Canada, as they receive a "hero award" from the forum."

Is it just me or does any one else see a problem with having our national symbol used in this manner? For the libs out there; JC is not our national symbol, the mounties are.

MoonBat Outreach

Today's travels took us to The Green Lantern which is run by a lovely individual named Gretchen. I think Gretchen may be vegitarian because I found the Meatrix link on her sidebar.

"Hi Gretchen Thought I'd stop by for a burger.... where's the burgers?Richard Evans Homepage 04.27.05 - 5:52 pm #

Cute Richard, Neo-Con Crusher...you've done it again. I am speechless...Gretchen Homepage 04.27.05 - 6:12 pm # "

Authors Note: Neo-Con Crusher is one of her regular visitors and isin't tied to me at all.

"Now that's the best thing I've heard all day! lolRichard Evans Homepage 04.27.05 - 6:35 pm #

"Now that's the best thing I've heard all day!"Is it, Richard? Or is it more likely that you're just another retarded, meat-eating troll, looking for a fight? Be honest with yourself {mighty difficult with someone of your political bent, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt}Welcome to the Green Lantern.Joe Chip Homepage 04.27.05 - 7:33 pm #

Sounds like another outreach moment... Hi Joe. Wow, you sure type big. It's interesting to see that you use google as your homepage. Seeing that you don't have a home of your own, why don't you surf over to my page and we'll see if I can't show you the light. That is if you're up to a little debate with a meat-eating troll. I'll even give you your own post...Richard Evans Homepage 04.27.05 - 10:45 pm # "

As such, this outreach moment is being dedicated to JOE CHIP. It amazes me how those on the left preach tolerance and then jump right into a rant like that. Well Joe, If you think you measure up step inside. I'll get things started: Why is it that eco-nuts get all bent out of shape at the thought of clubbing a baby seal yet say nothing when a baby is aborted in it's third trimester? Is it because they really don't value life and just use the seals to make a political statement? Or is it that they place the life of an animal above that of a human?

The Meatrix and some other thoughts...

This is really funny. Take the red pill to find out what the meatrix really is. lol

• Don't watch it if you're easily influenced by slick video made by moonbats.

Got this in my e-mail today:

• It really explains why the Liberals keep winning the Ontario voters:

What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonderabout those people who say they are giving more than 100%?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer that question:
If:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z is represented as:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then: H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K=8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E=11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But, A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E=1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

And, B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%

AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.

A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G=1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%

So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that While Hard workand Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.

I think the Liberals have it all figured out.

The name Game

If Grits = Gritty = Dirty,
and Dippers = Dippy = Dumb,
What does Tory equate to?

Publication Ban Partially Lifted

Coffin fingers Guite. Guite to testify later this week, under a publication ban of course.

"Coffin singled out Guite and the bureaucrat's assistant, Huguette Tremblay, in a scheme to bill taxpayers for maximum, pre-set production fees that were paid regardless of whether his firm did any work."

The full article can be found here.

Conservatives Need To Stand Firm

A great article by Janet L. Jackson with the Calgary sun. Please note that references to Mr. Kinsella being a "pathetically frail shell of his old self-aggrandizing self" are purely coincidental and not the intention of this post.

A Prayer For The Left...

"Jeff" calls it the perfect prayer for the NDP and their followers. I personally think it applies to the Liberals as well.

The government is my shepherd:
I need not work.
It alloweth me to lie down on a good job;
It leadeth me beside still factories;
It destroyeth my initiative.
It leadeth me in a path of a parasite for politic's sake;
Yea though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending,
I will fear no evil, for the government is with me.
It prepareth an economic Utopia for me, by appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren.
It filleth my head with false security;
My inefficiency runneth over.
Surely the government should care for me all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a fool’s paradise forever
Amen/woman.

Welcome to Canada eh!

Warren Kinsella got Mad at Me

Post Removed.

Seems that when the wife told me to leave this guy alone she meant it. Hopefully she'll read this and I won't have to sleep on the sofa tonight.

Here We Go Again...

MUZZLED!

Gomery Inquiry once again under publication ban!

"MONTREAL (CP) - Advertising executive Paul Coffin took the stand at the sponsorship inquiry Tuesday under a publication ban aimed at protecting his right to a fair trial on fraud charges related to the sponsorship program.
Coffin is the second ad executive to testify under the ban imposed last month by inquiry judge John Gomery, who also barred media from reporting on testimony by ad executive Jean Brault.
Testimony by Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who ran the sponsorship program, will also fall under the ban. He's expected to testify at the inquiry later this week.
Gomery could allow media to report all or part of Coffin's testimony when the ad man wraps up his testimony this week."

I guess they didn't get the message the first time.

Sacred Cow Isin't Anymore

Seems that someone finally did a poll to find out how Canadians felt about healthcare.

Seems that PM squared has been either lying or seriously misdirected when he tell us that Canadians don't want changes to the system.

The poll in question say's that 52% of us want to have a user-pay system along side the public system.

What do you think this is going to do to PM squared's campaign ammunition of "They want to destroy Healthcare!"?

Methinks his bubble is going to be deflated a little.

Quick note: "Job Thingy" is going to have me occupied for most of the day. If anyone has any info on the connections between Maurice Strong and George Soros please throw it in the coments section.

Speaking of History...

Way back in 1958 a fella named W. Cleon Skousen wrote a book called the Naked Communist. In that book he stated 45 declared goals for the communist takeover of America. I haven't read the book but I have read the stated goals. Lets have a look at some of them and see how they've done so far. Please bear in mind that terms "America" or "US" can be ment to mean "North America" or can be replaced with "Canada" and still have the same effect. Oh, and because we're nice Canadians lets call them "Socialists" instead of "Communists".

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. - Canadian Military neutered, check.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N. - UN lets anyone in, check

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) - UN seen as governing world body, check.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths. - All but the Boy Scout's oath removed, check.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. - US Dems, Canadian NDP and Libs, check.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. - Courts have ultimate power, check.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks. - Schools completely co-opted, check.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers. - Student newspapers co-opted, check.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. - Press co-opted with exception of some small regional publications, check.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. - Control achieved, check.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms." - Check, check and tripple check.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art." - How do you think they managed #22, Check!

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. - They're still fighting for the right to view kiddie porn but for all intents and purposes, check.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. - Larry Flint, Check.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." - Send in Will and Grace and push for SSM, Check!

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch." - Scorn new pope and tell the people that Jesus was gay, check.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." - School prayer eliminated, check.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. - Work in US is ongoing. Canadian Bill of Rights replaced with socialist Charter of Rights and Freedoms, check.

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. - Very little Canadian history taught in schools, check.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. - Social Service Agencies operate with impunity, check.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. - Control is absolute, check.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat]. - See 32 above. Ensure populace is on either valume or prozac. Ensure children are fed ritalin, check.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. - Too dificult. Goal changed to use hate laws to gain coercive control over those who oppose socialist goals, check!

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. - Look at the Stats! Check!

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. - Prosecute parents for taking the kids X Box away. Put them in foster care, check.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems. - Gain widespread support of terrorism and social activism, check.

Those goals were written almost 50 years ago. Well over 50% have been acheived. The Liberal Party of Canada has allowed it to happen. Endorsed it.

The Political Compass

A quiz that shows where you stand within the political spectrum.

Designed by the lib-left with questions so completely biased that you have to pick the most sadistic answers to show up as a conservative. (They term it to be somewhere between neo-Liberalism and Fascism)

Here are some examples:

Your multiple choice options include; Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.

The businessman and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.

Astrology accurately explains many things.

You cannot be moral without being religious.

I would not wish to send my child to a school that did not instill religious values.

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.

Methinks it was put together to influence the weak minded making them think that they're "lefties" too. Check it out, it's good humor.

I'll Bet On Option "B"!

That wacky Carolyn Parrish is in the news again. She says that she won't use her vote to topple the government when the time comes. She's been scorned by the Libs after some public "Bush Bashing", and has real reason to give them the shaft so why doesn't she? Is it because;

A. She really believes that another election would be a waste of taxpayer money or,

B. She knows that she's going to loose her job as a result?

My money's on option "B".

Moonbat Outreach contd...

There's fresh bait opps, I mean a new individual over at my blahg that hinks he's got what it takes... He's issued the challenge:

Zorpheous, how very....cryptic of you.Care to present the class with something of substance?Jeff 04.24.05 - 4:27 pm #

lol you're asking them to get blood from stone Jeff...Richard Evans Homepage 04.24.05 - 4:42 pm #

Certainly Jeff, what would you like to talk/debate about? There are so many issues at this time,... Budget? SSM? The time of the election? CPC working with the Bloc? Liberals working with the NDP? Senate reform? Legalizing Pot? The Gun registry? The weather? Kyoto? Green Energy Development? Tax reform? Those funny political compass tests and their results? Or the proper techniques of eating bananas while dancing? ;-) Oh so many topics, or we could talk about poor spelling as well ;-)Zorpheous Homepage 04.24.05 - 5:13 pm #

My reply was:

Holy crap we've got a live one... Hey Zorphalic how about coming over to my place to pick the fight? http://nomoresocialism.blogspot.com/ These individuals don't like having the blahg polluted with logic. I've got posts on the lib-left mentality, SSM, Abortion, Kinsella, and so much more. Pick one of the current ones though as I have having to scroll down to find the new tidbits. Actually, give me 15 min and I'll give you your own post...Richard Evans Homepage 04.24.05 - 6:16 pm #

I've been growing "snarky" with the in-duv-viduals lately has anyone noticed? I'll try to tone it down some.

Anyway Zorpheous here we go:

Budget: The budget was rigged to trigger the fall of the government with the hopes of bolstering support for the martin regime based on the misplaced idea that the conservatives don't want mothers to get free daycare and that the conservatives don't want the Atlantic provinces to get their cash.

SSM: SSM is nothing more than attempt by the gay community to further their agenda of acceptance by forcing their lifestyle to be accepted in the mainstream.

Election Timing: The libs are no longer in control of timing. The Canadian people have the information needed to form an honest opinion of the lib govt. and don't need to wait any longer. They don't need a fancy formatted report to help make their decision. The libs hope that stalling will force the issue out of the minds of the populace...

NDP and Libs: If the NDP wishes to prop up the libs they do so at their own peril. The public has already noticed that Layton stood up and said (for all intents and purposes) that "We will support this corrupt govt. provided that out agenda is met!" The public knows that the Libs said something similar with "We know that there was some corruption but it was worth it to save Canada!" The public is not happy. You make the connections.

Senate Reform: Triple "E" Senate is the only way to go. Bring some balance to the legislature.

Legal Pot: In the lib-left world it's a harmless drug. In the real world there are problems with it. What's required is a government that's willing to deal with appropriately by eliminating it.

Gun Registry: This one is fun. A $2M dollar database turns into a $2B dollar database. Methinks there are some shades of adscam involved. As for the premise: Criminals don't register their guns because they are... wait for it... CRIMINALS!

Kyoto: A simple transfer of wealth from western nations to 3rd world countries with no measurable value to the environment. The science behind it has been completely debunked.

Tax reform: Too much of my tax money goes toward silly social programs!

Green Energy: Make it cost effective and people will go for it. Stop rolling out expensive alternatives and calling it progress.

Compass tests and results: A snapshot in time. Completely dependent on the "polling pool". If performed incorrectly as the dems in the US did, give inaccurate results. Same incorrect polling for CBC recently giving erroneous results. Suspect "real"results are far more slanted toward conservatives than is indicated by MSM.

Banana Eating Techniques: We await your instruction Zorpheous!

I await your comments...

Moonbat Outreach

Update Sunday afternoon: Because of a busy day, I haven't been able to articulate my position here as well as I'd like. Instead I'd like to point to someone that could do a much better job. Her name is Tammy Bruce. She is a former leader of the LA chapter of the National Organization for Women. She's a feminist, lesbian, gun owner, former activist and talkshow host. With her experience she's been able to write the book "The Death Of Right and Wrong" outlining all of the ways that the left has co-opted the concept of right and wrong for their own gains. That is the point that I'm trying to make with my post. It's an excellent read. Please have a look at either her website or the book for further information.

Yesterday I set up the trampoline for the kids. I followed the instructions. Assembled the frame making sure the connections were tight. Made sure there were no holes or defects in the mat. Installed the springs in the required order. Checked the whole thing for level. Tested it prior to letting the kids play on it. I know it seems pretty mundane but, it's the perfect opening for today's installment of the Moonbat Outreach. This week I visited "sinister thoughts" where the owner was commenting on how the liberals lied about BMD. What follows are the posts from the comment section:

"I'm sorry, did you just realize that Martin lies to moonbats as well. That's got to be reaking havoc inside the 'ol NDP bubble.Richard Evans Homepage 04.23.05 - 12:21 pm #

Oh, I realized Richard, I realized.Greg Homepage 04.23.05 - 12:52 pm #

Richard, you seem to want to lump in all Liberals and NDPers under the same lefty banner -- possibly so as to make it easier for you to dismiss anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. I'm frankly surprised that somebody who supposedly believes in the rights of individuals to think for themselves doesn't realize that there is plenty of room for individuals to come to different conclusions and still be reasonable people.Greg has been consistent in his distrust and criticism of the Liberal party. He sees them as being too right-wing for his taste. I can see no reason why you should taunt him about bursting his "bubble", unless you're just here to make trouble.You shouldn't make so many assumptions about real people, Richard. From your comments, you're showing a level of disdain towards Greg that he does not deserve. Unlike others, he has not sought a fight with you. He is a reasonable man, as intelligent as you are, but he just happens to think differently.And doing so in our democracy does not make him a fool or a rogue.If you want to argue specific ideas or policies, Greg will be happy to oblige. But if you continue to, as it seems, make this personal, you're only highlighting your inability to argue according to the facts.James Bow Homepage 04.24.05 - 12:22 am #

Well James, I'd have to disagree. You see, I make my judgements based on right and wrong. There are differences of opinion, yes but only one can be truly right. I will not celebrate an opinion simply because it's different. If it's wrong I'll point it out. If it's right I'll point that out as well. In fact James, I'm going to use your post above as an example of one that is wrong and I'll explain why. You'll see it on my site later this afternoon. "If you want to argue specific ideas or policies, Greg will be happy to oblige."I am debating / addressing a specific issue James. That issue is the Lib-Left mentality. I don't know if you've followed my posts at all James or if you have you haven't been paying attention. I base all of my arguments on facts. Stop by later and see for yourself.Richard Evans Homepage 04.24.05 - 10:53 am #

I agree Richard that we needn't celebrate each other's opinion. We just need to respect each other enough to accept that even though wrong, the other has a fundamental right to their opinion. So, fire away, but cut out the moonbat stuff. You are better than that.Greg Homepage 04.24.05 - 12:54 pm #

Richard, there may be right and wrong answers for every question, but it's not true to say that there's only ever one right answer in issues as complex as politics. It's certainly arrogant to believe that one is right all or most of the time. We are all struggling through a life-long test, and nobody has supplied us with a manual.This applies to me as well as to you. And for that reason, you will never see me call you a moonbat, a wingnut, a Nazi, fascist or other valueless insult. I will never dismiss any ideology as being utterly without merit -- except in cases where they leave open no ability to compromise.I have largely been okay with the government we've received in Ontario throughout my lifetime, even as we swung from the NDP's Bob Rae to the Tories' Mike Harris. Both individuals did what they could under challenging circumstances. Both have made mistakes, but both got some things right.The options of applicable political thought are a lot wider than you think they are. Because politics is nothing more than a bunch of individuals struggling to decide how to use a limited set of resources to serve the needs of as many individuals as possible. We all have roughly the same set of skills. So I am not going to stoop to insult or deride other individuals who think differently. I'll argue only the possible consequences of their policies. Not the individuals' mentality in advocating them.James Bow Homepage 04.24.05 - 2:03 pm #

Richard,"Well James, I'd have to disagree. You see, I make my judgements based on right and wrong. There are differences of opinion, yes but only one can be truly right."I disagree completely. The most complex problems in life - many of which play out in politics, are often shades of grey. These morale dillemmas have never been decisively solved (except in the heads of close-minded individuals) precisely because their rightness and wrongness is in flux, or impossible to determine.Real life isn't as simple as "right" and "wrong" unless you're willing to pigeon-hole the world into ill-fitted boxes, and consider nothing outside of them. It's just not that easy.I don't claim to know what value system (or ad hoc version thereof) you follow, however there is no perfect moral system that can answer every problem all of the time.Andrew Homepage 04.24.05 - 2:35 pm # "

So it's all relative is it? Had I set the trampoline up with that attitude there would be springs missing, I wouldn't have cared if the frame wasn't level or connected properly. I wouldn't have checked for holes in the mat. Why would I? The instructions are someone's opinion and all that really matters is how "I FEEL".

I would assert that my children would be in grave danger had those two set up my trampoline.

Lets transfer their attitude to the real world. To society. Are we not responsible as adults to properly set up the infrastructure or web of society that will keep future generations from hitting the ground? I admit that we don't have instructions as I did with the trampoline, but we do have the example of those who came before us. Is it not prudent to look back, determine what worked and what didn't and then press on with what worked? (socialism and modern liberalism continually fail)

Not if we're Andrew and James. They would have us determine a course of action based on how we "feel" because right and wrong is "subjective" and because we may have limited resources. Try and tell that to your kids when the trampoline breaks fellas.

It should be noted that I don't disagree with trying new things. In fact I'm all for it. I do think however that the tests should be performed in a controlled environment. Currently, the lib-left are performing their tests on society as a whole with disastrous results.

PS James: The left generally refers to people like me as fascist, hate monger, intolerant and heartless (psssttt... I'm a big boy and can take it...). Until that changes I will continue to use the term Moonbat in reference to the left.

I'm tight for time right now but I'll try to expand on my thoughts a little more later.

This one will Piss Off the Left for sure!

Reader Candace was not impressed with the idea that I used abortions as an example of left wing thinking. In fact she tore quite a strip off of me for it as evidenced below.

First of all, Richard, men arguing against abortion doesn't work. Those same men (not meaning to use a very broad paintbrush, hoping you get my drift here) are the fathers & uncles & brothers impregnating their daughters through incest, the abusive husband/boyfriend impregnating, through what sometimes amounts to rape, their wives/girlfriends.Most importantly: Men do not "not get hired" because they're likely going to get pregnant (don't laugh, I had many an interview, years ago before PC came into play, where I was asked when I intended to start a family... WTF??? More recently, I've seen it asked, in a roundabout way to avoid the PC Police.). Men do not lose their income for 6-12 months (EI maxes out at what, $1,100 per month? could YOUR family survive?) Men do not risk their lives to bear children (check the stats on live-births vs. non-live, on miscarriages, on related health issues). Men are not the ones carrying the burden of raising a child (fine, you're happily married & I assume engaged in child-rearing - check the stats, you're a minority). Men are not left with raising a child in sub-poverty or poverty-line income levels (check the stats). Men don't change their careers or lives to suit their children (check the stats, call a divorce lawyer if you must). Men don't get raped (often, and don't get pregnant as a result). Men are not left holding the bag when "the condom broke."In short, MEN DON'T GET IT.IMHO, when men get pregnant, they can comment effectively. Until then, back off...Candace 04.24.05 - 5:49 am #

That was a very passionate response Candace. The post was not placed to start a discussion on abortion though. It was there to illustrate the mindset of the average liberal and frankly, your roots are showing.I'll do a post later today on abortion because my thoughts are too lengthy for the comments section.Richard Evans Homepage 04.24.05 - 9:58 am #

"It was there to illustrate the mindset of the average liberal..."A better argument would be something along the lines of Chretien decrying what happened in Bosnia but refusing to join in the fight against Iraq (and the number of atrocities committed against the Iraqis by Saddam).I'll be curious to see how much pushback you get from "right thinking" women on your post (note RG's home page).I'm in a hurry so can't research right now; but will.No abortion at all, without taking "unusual circumstances" into account, is a pure male argument. Especially when that male is against welfare etc. Who's gonna feed the baby, Richard?Cheers.Candace 04.24.05 - 11:38 am #

As noted in my reply, Candace seems very passionate about this issue and will likely not take kindly to what I have to say.

The article excerpt did not state a position on the ethics of abortion Candace. It merely illustrated the conflicting nature of the lib-left mindset. e.g. they disagree with clubbing cuddly baby seals and yet endorse abortion within the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Do a google search on the recent seal hunt and see how many hits you get. Then do a search on "Bobbi Jo Stinnett" and "amber alert". In this case a woman was murdered and the 8 month old baby was removed from her womb. The media initially called it a fetus until it was found to be a living breathing baby. (note that even after calling it a baby in the story CNN uses this as the web addy of the story: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/18/fetus.found.alive/) It had the potential to do some serious harm to the idea that "fetus" and "baby" are not one and the same. The media quickly let the story die. There was no mention of their contridiction of terms in reference to the child. The point of my post was to show the contradiction Candace.

Seeing that I was asked to justify MY position on abortion here it is:

First, If a woman gets pregnant because of rape, abortion is acceptable. Public funding of said procedure should be endorsed. I did not claim otherwise even though Candace read it into the post in question.

Second, If an abortion is required because of a medical danger to the mother it is acceptable and should be publicaly funded. Again I did not state otherwise even though Candace read it into the post.

Third,If some trollop gets pregnant because she couldn't keep her pants on and now sees the little life growing inside her as an inconvenience she should have the right to have it removed. It is her body after all. I don't think the taxpayers should be funding it. I find it disgusting that the pro-abortion movement uses slogans on t-shirts to promote it. I think the trollop should should be made to take councilling prior to and after the procedure because said individual has made a serious error in judgement (taking her pants off to begin with). I think women under the age of 18 need to have their parents permission for having said procedure performed. I think the woman has a moral responsibility to include the father in the decision making process.

Fourth, I think that having the "abortion safety net" used as carelessly as it has been has done more to hold the feminist movement back than it has to further it. I think it's created an environment where a large number of women (most notibly teenagers) have lost their self respect. By "putting out" so easily and casually they have certinly lost the respect of many men.

Fifth, I think that Candace's argument that men should not be discussing abortion is completely absurd. Men comprise approximately 50% of the population. Abortion used to be a personal private issue but the lib-left turned it into a social issue citing how it was required to stop children being born into poverty, how it needed to be pubicly funded, etc. As 1/2 of that effected society, you bet your ass men should have a say in the direction taken.

And finally, I have a personal attachment to this issue as well. My wife and I had a very hard decision to make just over 10 years ago. We decided to become parents after having the proverbial "accident". Notice how I said "WE". It was inconvenient. We had to adjust our lives considerably. I had to get a real job while Corinne took care of Courtney(fact of life because I don't lactate). I had to learn responsibility. We learned that teaching our daughter to keep her pants will save a whole lot of agony for her later in life.

I can't help but wonder what my life would be like if we had chosen to abort Courtney. There would have been a light missing but, to tell the truth, I would likely still be so self involved that I wouldn't know it.

I expect pushback for my opinion Candace, yes. You should know that by now. I'm prepared to argue it to the point of exhaustion and beyond. If there are those that choose to remove links to my page ( e.g. rightgirl ) because of my stance I'm fine with that (you may wish to let her judge for herself though). The only validation I need on this issue, I get every evening when I tuck my little ones into bed.

I think that instead of putting a focus on hiding mistakes we should be looking at encouraging people to not make the mistakes to begin with. Society is currently doing the opposite.

The Liberal Mindset

Here are some excerpts from this article. It's a good read if you have a few minutes. Hat tip Jeff.

"Understanding the Liberal Mindset

What accounts for liberal thinking? My “guess” is that most liberals have two personality disorders, most expansively described in psychiatric literature.

The first is narcissism, in which people feel they are special and therefore entitled to the things they want at the exact moment they want them.

When crossed, narcissists become virulently angry and lash out with personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with their opinions. But because they crave adulation, they can become irresistibly charming in the very next minute, almost defying their audience to give them some slack. Sound familiar?

Narcissism, in fact, is at the root of liberals’ embrace of abortion. While “power to the powerless” is their anthem, no legislation has ever been more passionately embraced than the abortion-on-demand law of 1973 that allowed all “caring” liberals to kill the most powerless among us. To this day, they overrule any reservations they may have by invoking the most important aspect of their existences: their feelings! “This is a bad time for me and I would feel terrible, inconvenienced, pressured” (fill in the excuse).

Of course, this does not conflict with their horror at “civilian” deaths, especially if they result inadvertently from American military force. Nor does it conflict with their horror at the deaths of minks, the rodents out of whose pelts those nasty coats are made. After all, civilians and minks are already here, while in the minds of liberals, developing embryos (with heartbeats and nervous systems, eyes and ears) are simply “tissue.” "

Some humor...

Starting to stock up on goodies for the election... went to RightWingStuff.com Poor visa's going to get maxxed...

Lefties Believe What They Believe...

until someone finds out about it!

Seems there is a nice provincial NDP candidate in BC who doesn't see accused war criminal Slobodan Milosevic as being such a bad guy.

"I saw him as someone caught up in a bad time in history," Keith said. "He meant well. He was trying to do his best for his country."

"Categorically Milosevic has been accused of dastardly crimes and I am not the one to say whether he is innocent or guilty," he said.

"I don't know what orders he did or did not give, but I discussed it with him and he convinced me to some extent that whatever he did was for the good of his country and I came away with the sense that this man was not a diabolical war criminal."

Seems that party leader Carole James didn't see her candidates position as being a problem because it was based on personal experience.

"I'm very pleased with Rollie as a candidate," she said during a campaign stop in Vancouver. "He has a long history of peace-keeping and work in the military. I disagree with his comments but he made his comments based on his experience over there."

Seems there was just a little bit of public outrage.

"Premier Gordon Campbell said the NDP mishandled Keith's nomination from the outset.
"Surely the NDP should have known (about his support for Milosevic) and they should have acted on it then, not now," he said. "Given that Mr. Keith has resigned, that's what he should do." "

Seems that once they were clued into the fact that supporting a murderous dictator would look bad for them, said candidate resigned.

Is it possible that they didn't act because they share the same ideological view as their candidate?

Osama Bin Martin not a big stretch

A recent comment by Geoff Norquay referred to PMPM as "Osama Bin laden Martin" . He has since apologized for the "off the cuff" remark.

Thinking about it, it is a stretch, just not a big one though.

The Liberal Party leader and the Taliban leader are both hiding. They both communicate through video tapes. Neither want to be investigated or put on trial. The Liberal Party and the Taliban have a deep hate for the US and democracy in general. They both seem to acquire funding through nefarious sources.

It's my understanding that Norquay's comment was meant to be humorous, that there was no malicious intent. Needless to say, the libs got all pissy, demanded and subsequently received an apology. Fair enough.

I'd like to ask though why it is that the folks on the left are quick to use labels like fascist and make comparisons to Hitler and yet scream bloody murder when the tables are turned?

A Bright New Day

Yesterday's events were wonderful.

Jack Layton showed himself and his party as true "moonbats" by all but coming right out and saying "We will support this crooked Liberal government as long as they Accept NDP policy!"

PM squared was wriggling and begging on national TV. In primetime.

Mr. Harper used some of the same points that I used when rebutting the "leaked Liberal talking points". They were obvious ones yes, but nice to hear just the same. It's good for the ego.

Mr. Kinsella's own ego makes him write a piece where he seems to be gloating over giving the Liberal party grief. Your's truly gets to take a critical look at his words and come up with some decent questions as a result.

I'm finally starting to loose that little bit of cynicism that says "things won't change". I'm excited to see what the next few weeks will bring.

Too bad the "job thingy" is going to be distracting me.

MOONBAT OUTREACH

I was just over at "My Blahg" where they are discussing some of the potential legislation to be introduced with a conservative government. Here's their comment thread so far:

"Well isnt that just like a Liberal, or more likely a French-Liberal. The war has barely begun and he's already surrendering!!!Labby 04.20.05 - 10:28 pm #

"...This is the socalled "Conscience Clause" that has become the conservative's new line of assault on abortion and contraception ..."Robert, in his "comments" section Gracchi distinguished between pharmacists being compelled to hand out birth control meds, and doctors being compelled to perform abortions.Do you?J Hickman Homepage 04.20.05 - 10:29 pm #

Heh heh. Good work Robert. I don't think Canadians particularily care at this point though...If Harper gets a majority, there might be a few morning after regrets from Canadian voters.CalgaryGrit Homepage 04.20.05 - 10:34 pm #

Which one of these legislative initiatives was [i]not[/i] a crib from the Republican Party's agenda? I'm having [i]déjà vu[/i] all over again.Ti-Guy 04.20.05 - 10:54 pm #

"What can I say about this other than it just goes to show how much the Conservative Party is emulating the Republican Party"Thanks for pointing that out Rube. Good! ...glad you finally figured that out.And as for encroaching on the powers of the court, double good! In guess when you have an activist, fiberal, "theft"-leaning court system, then a fiberal rube like you would want to maintain status-quo. But, in a democracy, Rube, the majority will is supposed to prevail don't you see. Why don't you busy yourself by taking a couple of poly-sci courses Rube (instead of wasting it on this useless puke-site), ...then you might learn something about how a democracy is supposed to work.Calgary Grit ...are you a fiberal shill transplanted from ontario?big momma 04.20.05 - 10:58 pm #

The only problem I have with the SSM legislation is that it does not address how to protect the rights of those that voluntarily wish to practice polygamy. Some religions encourage polygamy, so if don't make provisions for them in this bill, we are still depriving people of their rights under the Charter.OntLib 04.20.05 - 11:13 pm #

The Charter only says basically that laws have to apply to all Canadians, without discrimination. Currently, there are no laws in Canada that permit polygamous civil marriages. If the polygamists want that, they should mount a campaign.Ti-Guy 04.20.05 - 11:24 pm #
So Ti-Guy you think that all that stands in the way of supporting polygamist's rights is a challenge under the Charter? Insightful!OntLib 04.20.05 - 11:37 pm #

No, that's not what I said at all. Polygamist civil marriages are not permitted in Canada. Marriages between 2 people are. Laws that only allow marriages between only 1 man and 1 women were judged unconstitutional, because they violate the equality section of the Charter.I'm not sure what exactly what the polygamists would have to do to get the same civil marriage rights as everyone else.Ti-Guy 04.20.05 - 11:59 pm #

Understand Ti-Guy. But that law which prevents polygamy is found to violate religious freedom, then is not in violation of the Charter, and should be struck down as well? I think polygamist's have a good argument here, and since their practice does not affect me negatively in any way, we should protect their rights as well.OntLib 04.21.05 - 12:09 am # "

I was expecting it to be next but I didn't expect it soo soon.

Good Morning Mr. Kinsella

This mornings musings (in italics) as put forth by Kinsella on his blog. The other text is mine.

"April 20, 2005 - Before, say, Susan gets the chance to slip her story in today's Star into a cabinet minister's hands prior to Question Period, I figured I should post this. It's to a Star reporter who is a good friend, but whose name I will leave out of this, for now."

With the life you've led and the people you associate with Mr. Kinsella can you really call anybody a "good friend"?

"Operation Repudiation™ continues. When will these bullies in Ottawa understand that the more they go after me, or the people close to me, the more I will fight back? You'd think that, after a decade or so, they'd know at least that much."

Bullies Mr. Kinsella? Do you have the moral ground to use such words? Do you think that perhaps after 10 years they finally smell blood and see the oportunity to have their way with you? You seem to be stretched thin Mr. Kinsella. Perhaps you'd consider dropping out of public eye and go back to the "punk rock" you seem to enjoy so much.

Something to Ponder

"We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires,"

Chew on it for a while...

Hey Warren!

There are those out there warning me against taking you on. Here are some of their comments:

"Richard, seriously consider whether you want to pick a fight with Kinsella. He's highly intelligent and he fights to win (as you-know-who at ATC has discovered). Don't expect to walk away unscathed if you keep whacking at this particular hornet's nest.(Not saying that you shouldn't, just making sure you know what kind of trouble you're renting.)..."
...Not saying you should, it's just that I've seen the kind of damage he can inflict in a fight, and one shouldn't engage in those fights casually. It's one of those 'playing with fire' things."

And

"Richard, I am concerned for you my friend. I am NOT a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt: I think a judge would look at your posts and overlook the fineprint. The question he will have in mind is, did you intend to defame the man. It's a fine line between satire, and defamation. To stay clearly on the side of satire, which is appropriate given the redolent PoS we aretalking about, I encourage you to refrain from using his proper name, and image (which I e-mailed you about earlier).

If he decides to sue, which he can do if he chooses,the story will be a big one, because MSM is VERYscared of blogging right now, and they will not side with you. They will make a very big deal of it, citing you as an example. It will set blogging back. For obvious reasons, that would be very bad news indeed.

I know where you are coming from, I think (we agree on many things out there on the blogsphere, but you may not realize it) so I sent you this not to discourage you, but rather keep you whole for the good fight.

Perhaps you already have legal advice that obviates my words, and if I am needlessly worried, kindly ignore. I certainly admire your courage, your conviction, and your intellect.

I truly suggest torquing it back some, and if you want to brainstorm how to do so with dignity, by all meansfeel free to email me on it."

My basic reply is as follows:

• "As far as getting into a tangle goes: I would entertain leaving Kinsella alone if he'd ease up on the other bloggers. I see no reason for him to be worried about the information they provide if he's innocent. What I've seen so far is nothing but play-ground bully tactics in response to said information which leads one to think there may be something Kinsella want's to hide.

• I won't say that I'm immune to his tactics but I think I'm in a better position than others. I'm self employed so he can't get to me through my employer. He can't get to me through my clients as I have made a conscious decision to work only with those leaning to the political right. I'd hate to say it but they seem to have more integrity. He can't get to me through my family as my wife supports my efforts. Frankly she's ticked off as well. As far as I can tell the only way he can get to me is if I get careless on what I post about him. The sheep posting should have sent a clear message that I have an understanding of the rules. As long as I stay on my toes I should be alright. Besides, I've got secret weapons. Time will tell.

• It would be really interesting to see what the MSM says. I know that it would get big publicity in the US. The media up here would have to address it by default because of the "free speech" issues. They would be forced to side with the bloggers for those same reasons. They can't publicly denounce the use of free speech without showing themselves as extremely biased. They have enough trouble with those types of alligations as it is."

There are those that say that since you put the screws to PM squared that you should be left alone. To them I reply thus:

• "The whole problem here is reminiscent of the Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo thing. Look at it like this: Because one of the killers testified on the other does that make the first killer any less guilty? The general mindset would cut killer #1 some slack because of the testimony. We're seeing that mindset right now in the case of Kinsella. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying in the least that Kinsella would have anything to do with killing nor am I implying that he has been proven of any wrongdoing. But the question has to be asked. If the information is accurate and Kinsella is somehow involved in this mess, which I have yet to see unequivocal proof of, one has to beg the question as to whether he would be any less guilty than the people he's accusing. The only way we're going to find out is with thorough scrutiny. Kinsella is doing everything in his limited power to avoid said scrutiny"

There are those that think I don't have a chance. With some research I discovered the following:

In 1997 Kinsella made 20 complaints to the BC press council in regards to errors/problems with op/ed pieces during his 1997 political bid. 2 were upheld. That gives me what? A 90% chance at success? I like those odds...