Apolitical Staples

Harper is more Uncle Fester than Uncle Louis. Louis St. Larent was everyone’s favourite kindly uncle figure. Harper is the cranky neighbour who yells at your kids to get off his lawn.

Also, don’t you find it creepy that Granatstein is telling Harper to practice old style Liberal politics in Quebec (nice fat defence contracts mixed with a little race baiting)?

Greg, happy pills man. You are going to give yourself an ulser. But wait until Monday, I want that attitude on the hotstove ;)

I can’t remember. Did Socialist Greg exhibit the same sort of pulpit-thumping, vein-popping apoplexy over Paul Martin?

Yes, OC. I hated that bastard.

“Harper is the cranky neighbour who yells at your kids to get off his lawn.”

Sorry to be momentarily off topic but, I don’t get it. Is it actually okay to disrespect neighbour’s property these days?

Is it actually okay to disrespect neighbour’s property these days?

Potato, you are beautiful. A perfect example of the CPC voter.

I apologise profusely, Mr.Staples, but, I must admit that I lack the ability to decipher the innuendo in Greg’s response.

Greg, please indulge me for a moment and supply a direct answer to my question.

Regards.

Oh. Oh. Oh-oh-oh! Look. “Uncle” Louis. Louis St. Laurent. One of more than FIFTY individuals, all King-appointed to the Cabinet, before winning a seat in parliament.

Some were appointed to the Senate. Most ran eventually and almost all of them won their seats. But the ones that did not win the seat were again appointed to cabinet.

I think I recall that the reluctant St. Laurent actually served in Cabinet, while a civilian, neither elected MP, nor appointed Senator. Talk about your uber-Fortier lack of accountability!!

Greg: (Brady?) You didn’t answer Spuds Question. You just resorted to an ad hominem attack on the person. Debate issues or pound salt. You sound typically liberal, ndip, or wack-o socialist. All various shades of neo-commie, anyway. Surprised you didn’t call spudster a “…perfect example of a typical (Yankee Lovin’) CPC voter…”

Thanks for your succinctly phrased, erudite and extremely well-thought out and cogent rebuttal to potato’s earlier posting. Please know that I find your contributions to the discourse…interesting, to say the least. Try this for a good guideline:

IF your I.Q. measures a number lesser than your shoe size, be careful about what you say. People may wonder about your sanity.

IF your I.Q. is less than your hat-band, don’t say anything at all. Otherwise people will be certain that you are truly a mental midget.

IF your I.Q. measures less than your Johnson, don’t ever try to put your simple and feeble-minded thoughts down on paper or in pixels.

Your glaring ignorance will be openly displayed and readily re-called by anyone looking for examples of truly lousy debating skills.

I’d be more than happy to challenge you to a duel of wits, but I promised my dear mumsie on her death bed, that I would never fight an unarmed man. You would call yourself a man, wouldn’t you? I gotta hand it to you, cause you’re either as dumb, shallow and insensitive as your comments make you out to be, or you’ve got more dumb nerve than Dick Tracy. I’m betting on the former, ‘cause I strongly believe that being a Liberal is a mental disorder, and an example of true anti-social, criminal inclination. Your riposte was so elaborate that I almost had trouble following the absolute wisdom of it all. To the best of my abilities this is what I understood you put down for posterity.

“I think that ‘potato’ just said something that I might not fully understand, but might be somewhat inclined to disagree with. I’m not sure. I’ll guess that I’ll just go with Liberal Talking Points and Plan “Highest Priority”—I may not have the brains to discuss the issues so I’ll get all righteous and attack the individual. I will launch my most utmostest devastating personal attack on ‘potato’ just to show the world my utter brilliance in being a professing fiberal. Being an all-inclusive, encompassing and tolerant member of the Liberal Big Tent Circus of Clowns, Fools, Dolts, Liars and Thieves. Yeah. That’s it! That’s the ticket.”

I guess that this blog thing has to be pretty difficult for you to process, right Greg? Not enough pictures, is that it? Probably far, far, too many words, as well, huh? Some of them are REALLY BIG words, too, aren’t they? Dang.

ciao, o small-minded one.

L.H. & K.

Potato I don’t think I can answer your question directly, because it was never meant to be a logical argument. It is an illustrative joke. It works because it plays off a familiar archtype “the cranky guy next door”, someone we have all met in our life. To analyze the logically robs it of its humour.

Sorry to analyze a joke logically.

TangoJuliette Good catch! Most people would have missed ‘Yankee Lovin’ when I wrote my post. Your tinfoil hat must render it visible to the naked eye.

Socialist Greg:

Just for your edification, I offer this list of phrases and comments that do not, evidently comprise “ad hominem attack on the person”:

“typically liberal, ndip, or wack-o socialist” “neo-commie” “your I.Q. measures a number lesser than your shoe size” “your I.Q. is less than your hat-band” “mental midget” “your I.Q. measures less than your Johnson” “simple and feeble-minded thoughts” “you’re either as dumb, shallow and insensitive” “Clowns, Fools, Dolts, Liars and Thieves”

By all means file them away for use in future reasoned debates.

Greg and O.C.:

Just returning fire in kind. If that doesn’t seem like fair fire, don’t start the name-calling shoot-out. Or don’t bring your switch-blade to a gun-fight.

Just file my slurs under “what goes around comes around.” The old days of “docile turning of the other cheek are long gone! Get to expect blow-back.”

I, for one have grown weary of the name calling. But I will fight back.

Neo-con? Whenever anyone has called me that, I’ve asked them to explain what the label means to them. They never have an answer.

However, I most certainly know exactly what I mean when I call someone a neo-commie (lite).

Now, now, now. Can’t we all get along. This has obviously gone too far. Everybody, please play nice.

Can’t we all get along.

How can I turn a deaf ear to such a crie de cour? Consider it done. ;)

Hey, I have nothing against some well-placed name-calling (see above). My comments were directed at the seeming irony of criticizing “ad hominem” attacks in the midst of an invective filled screed in which the opponent is personally caricatured in various unsavoury ways.

Anonalogue, is that you?

Getting along is radically different from constantly getting a long shaft put to you, without smackin’ back.

How’s that old saw go? “..Do unto others first, and then they’ll get to do you…(?)” Yeah. Like that, or something like it, I guess.

What apears to be one person’s “seeming irony” is nothing more than another person’s determination to never again remain sillent in the face of attack.

That just may prove to be the new reality folks. Deal with it.

Neo-con? Whenever anyone has called me that, I’ve asked them to explain what the label means to them. They never have an answer.

I like that one. It reminds me of the billion dollars wasted on the gun registry. A clever reporter surveyed averaged Canadians on how much exactly a billion was. Most responded that it is two million with another zero.

How about considering this whole posting of mine to be nothing more than a case of an apparently unsavoury opponent being on the blow-back end of an “ad hominem counter-offensive, invective filled screed.”

The initial, feeble pre-emptive strike, just naturally received the appropriate response and the well deserved personal caricaturing it seemed to have so rightly earned.

“To analyze the logically robs it of its humour.”

That’s only true of clever jokes, so, analyze away. No harm done.

Holy fuck boys, you’re making the other side look good.

O Carb:

The other side is dead. Fini. Kaput. Mort. Toast etc etc etc. Only Pierre Truedough’s revisionists, embalmers and make-up artists could ever make the decaying libs look good again.

All that AND horizontally-striped suits.