Thursday, June 01, 2006

Liberal Agenda Goes Underground

Several Blogging Tories have disclosed the alarming news that somehow slipped by all of us: Polygamy has been allowed limited status in Canada. (H/T to Dust My Broom, SpiderMan's Web, RootleWeb, At Home in Hespeler, and many others.)

According to Sun Media, documents released "through access to information show polygamous marriages have been recognized "for limited purposes" to enforce financial obligations of husbands with multiple wives."

I am having trouble understanding just who decreed that this would be so, but evidence does point to some decisions "where provinces have recognized them (polygamous marriages) for marital property division, spousal support and potentially for public law benefits and burdens."

The interesting thing is that this is all coming out under access to information requests. Why was this kept so quiet?

During the federal election this past January, a study for the Justice Department was somehow leaked. It suggested that Canada should "get rid of its law banning polygamy and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships."

There was a great outcry, and we naively thought that was the end of it.

O.K. Jancis M. Andrews. Where are you when I need you?

73 comments:

Sara said...

this is sick and twisted

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, I think this "limited status" gives the whole thing too much credibility. My question is do all those kids get the $1200 child care benefit?

Soccermom said...

You know, by now, absolutely NOTHING those disgusting Liberal governments did surprises me anymore. Another day, another "What now?"...

Red Tory said...

Blame it on the infernal Liberals. Is there ANYTHING that you don't?

Anonymous said...

'Limited pregnancies' will come next.

Purchasing wives and husbands from overseas is about to become a big business in Canada. Especially since there's no need to prove the marriage is legitimate - a bill of sale will do.

ps - that's "Cattle" not "Chattel" moooo.... hammed...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ha! I thought this one would flush you out Red Tory! ;)

Liberal or liberal: The cause of our collective illness.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anonymous, can you expand on that please. Sounds interesting.

RGM said...

I remember when Irwin Cotler's Justice Department put out that document; I was as shocked and appalled then as I am now.
Polygamy is based on a lie. That lie is that men are capable of loving multiple women at the same time. That lie is used to justify men exercising their power over multiple women at the same time. These women are not accorded the same rights as the man, they are sworn to loyalty to him exclusively, even though he does not have a similar requirement (having sworn loyalty only to her, her, and her). It is a despicable practice that degrades women everywhere it is practiced and confines them to second-class citizenship. I truly hope that this is undone.

jdave34 said...

So if a 14 year old is forced into a polygamous marriage, and decides to leave this marriage, and needs to get custody, support, alimony, whatever, you don't think that there should be any laws established to allow for this?

Limited status means exactly that. It means that if the girl in my hypothetical situation goes before a court, the judge can actually make sure she's provided for.

Some of you seem to think that she should be told to f-off.

How will she provide for her children? Especially if as is often the case in these sad situations, her education and job prospects are very limited and her support network (community) abandons her?

Oh yeah, a hundred bucks a month in daycare chits. Awesome.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jdave, that's a very good point. The only problem I have is that it then legitimizes the whole situation.

Why not prosecute the old lech and send him to prison?

jdave34 said...

Joanne:

And how does that help the lady in my scenario?

Prosecution's great,and I agree with it, but at the end of the day, we still have to make sure that these women are not abandoned, and that those responsible for her situation provide her with the same support provided for a woman who's left a monogamous marriage.

If you want to turn this into "The Liberals have made polygamy legal!!!!", by all means, but rational analysis will bear out that this legislation is intended only to make sure that women caught in these situations have a way out and that they won't fall through the cracks and be left destitute. It also helps her provide for her children without having to send them back into these demented, perverted communities.

Seems pretty rational to me.

jdave34 said...

I think I should also differentiate between a couple of scenarios:

I don't have a problem with polygamy per-se. If it's between consenting adults, acting of their own free will, who am I to stop a dude if he's stupid enough to want more than one wife?

Now, if these 'brides' are coerced or pushed into it before they're adults by creepy old men and bizarro 'church elders', fuck it. Throw the dirty bastards in jail for child molesting and let them have a turn at being the brides.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave34 - Ouch! But I like your last comment.

There certainly is a big difference between consenting adults vs. rape.

When the age of consent is raised, this will become an even bigger issue.

Here is my concern though. If we are enforcing financial obligations of these "husbands" and making no effort at all to curb the activity, the next logical step is that they will demand to be treated as common-law marriages, with all the legal entittlements of death benefits, etc. Start thinking about the tax implications of that on the nanny state!

jdave34 said...

Joanne:

Simple solution:

The government should get out of the marriage business, and stop making tax laws, inheritance laws, etc. that place any kind of importance on marriage.

I don't see anything wrong with polygamists (consenting adults) being granted common law status.

The same way that you wouldn't want the government telling you that you have to be part of a polygamous relationship, I don't think the government has the right to tell someone that they have to be part of a monogamous relationship.

Get the government out of the marriage business and stop giving rewards and benefits to people based on their marital status. There's your solution right there.

And prosecute the peds.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jdave, I agree with you to a certain extent. I would like the word "marriage" dropped from the language of the government altogether.

jdave34 said...

Joanne: to what extent do you agree with me?

That this legislation makes all the sense in the world and actually serves to protect victims of these polyga-cults?

That the Liberals are not interested in making this a godless polygamous soociety, but in providing equal protection for all?

That this whole 'Liberal Agenda' thing is the usual steaming pile of bullshit, with no basis in reality, meant to make Liberals and liberals all look bad?

I really want to know, because, unless I'm mistaken, we may finally be seeing the beginnings of rational thought and analysis here, instead of the usual smug 'Oh those stupid lefties, look what they've done now..." bullshit...

Welcome aboard!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave, don't get too excited. I'm only agreeing that the government at all levels should get out of the marriage business.

People who rape young childen should be prosecuted.

That's about as much as we agree on.

As for the "Liberal agenda", well, that was a bit tongue in cheek, but maybe a small - L liberal agenda.

jdave34 said...

Joanne:

It wasn't tongue in cheek. It was typical conservative bullshit: meant to slander or insult.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation, or judicial opinion or whatever it is, actually makes sense and serves to protect some awfully vulnerable people.

30 seconds of analysis and unbiased thought, and this becomes obvious to all.

Yet instead of doing that thoughtful analysis, you chose to go with the easy shot: Liberals want polygamy legalized and normalized, and they're using underhanded methods to accomplish this.

I find this pathetic, because you always talk about reasonable discussions, and being polite and respectful. Do you mean that? Seriously? Because posts like this make you look like a jerk, and they don't do Conservatives any favours either.

Tongue in cheek indeed. Liberals support polygamous relationships between old men and underage girls.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, I thought we were having a civilized discussion. I guess Blake sent you out on Troll Patrol.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

BTW, jdave, why don't you show me how it's done? Let's see something new on your site.

jdave34 said...

You accuse Liberals of having a secret agenda to legalize polygamous relationships that include underage women, and when I point out the ignorance of that statement and point out the value of the legal opinion being discussed, I get called a troll.

Is that what all conservatives do when faced with their own stupidity? Yell "TROLL TROLL TROLL!!!"?

Lame. Seriously.

Civilized discussions don't start with insinuations that one of our political parties (and indeed probably half of our population) supports institutionalized polygamy, bordering on pedophilia.


Tell you what:

How about I accuse conservatives of having a secret plot to kill all muslims? Then I'll back up that statement with zero facts, but lots of chuckling and insinuations... then you can tell me that I'm full of shit and that Tories don't really want to kill Muslims. Then I can call YOU a troll.

Sound fair?

jdave34 said...

Joanne:

Between making sure that Christian Conservative stays honest, and pointing out the stupidity of your posts, I don't have time to update mine. It's a 24 hour a day job...believe me.

Maybe when Conservative bloggers start writing with the integrity, honesty and respect they always crow about I'll actually have time to update my own blog.

Until then, I'm afraid it's all about pointing out inaccuracies, falsehoods, and stupidities. Or as you call it, 'trolling'.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"You accuse Liberals of having a secret agenda to legalize polygamous relationships that include underage women"

I never said that you or any other Liberal (liberal) wants to see underage women taken advantage of.

We both want to see that old lech in B.C. put behind bars.

jdave34 said...

"Liberal Agenda goes Underground"

No you certainly didn't accuse the Liberals of anything in your posting.

You didn't need to. Not after that nice fat headline.

Question: If you didn't mean to insinuate anything about Liberals or liberals, why the title?

What's that all about?

Pardon my 'trolling'.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

An attention-getter. As part of Blake's blog-ethics patrol, you're doing an admirable job. If I were you, I wouldn't give this blog the time of day.

That would show me, boy.

jdave34 said...

You wish.

Hey, maybe if you ever decide to write with integrity and I can find a few minutes to post on my own blog, I'll use your attention-getter strategy:

STEPHEN HARPER CALLED GG A NIGGER

Only he didn't. But that shouldn't matter, right?

And thanks for the compliment. I'm really trying, and god knows, I have a lot of work ahead of me.

liberal supporter said...

I think we have to put up with these "hidden agenda" or "underground agenda" brickbats.

Think about how every discussion of abortion ends up talking about the conservative "hidden agenda" to criminalize abortion. The fact is that Stephen Harper says he will not introduce legislation, and at most will allow a free vote (free for cabinet as well) if a private member's bill came up, and has been quoted as saying there will be abortions anyway and criminalization does not help (my paraphrasing from memory).

So suppose this is on the level, and there is no hidden abortion criminalization agenda, would you not find it annoying when people keep saying there is one?

Any liberal supporter will certainly take the view expressed here that we are not careening down the slippery slope to group marriage and other forms of tribalism, and that allowing people coerced into polygamy to get some child support is not legalizing it. Same sex marriage was legalized, not just given "limited status".

I'm not sure why "limited status" even comes into it. Is it a legal recognition? If I claim child support from the other parent of my child, does that mean I have a common law marriage to that person? If so, does some lawyer end up claiming that my marriage is polygamous, since the other person is a philanderer and therefore has multiple common law marriages, and therefore we are giving limited status to polygamy because we allow the child support claim? It could be that convoluted. We saw in the earlier thread on Bountiful where the government lawyers claimed that a woman who was demanding action on rapes was being "patriarchal" because that did not actually happen to her personally.

I would encourage conservatives to consider the liberal concerns about hidden agendas involving criminalizing abortion through some back door means. If you want to make criminalizing abortion a clear part of the party platform, you should do that, then the agenda is not hidden. If not, then how do you counter the "hidden agenda" tag?

To do this encouragement, liberals need to consider the conservative concerns about "limited status" being the thin edge of the wedge to legalized polygamy. It's easy to see "leaked studies" as being trial balloons to determine if it is the right time to slip this one by. Poor choices of words in leaked studies is why governments don't like them to come out before their actual position has been determined.

Lord Omar said...

STEPHEN HARPER CALLED GG A NIGGER

He WHAT??!!!

jdave34 said...

Omar:

He didn't. And I NEVER implied he did.

:D

Look at me!! I'm Joanne!!

Lord Omar said...

I agree though jdave, that's how rumours get started.

Lord Omar said...

Hell-o, Jo-anne..

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hell-lo, Om-arrrr....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. I was going to bring up the infamous "hidden agenda". Thanks for doing it for me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - Surprisingly lucid remarks.

"If you want to make criminalizing abortion a clear part of the party platform, you should do that, then the agenda is not hidden."

It is not part of the Government's agenda.

Sara said...

yah Joanne they will just like the child tax credit...

Mary said...

Gentlemen:
And I use the term loosely as it seems that you have descended more and more into crass and gutter language to make your points. Surely your proficiency with the language is better than what you are exhibiting! Please show some class and let us see just how good you can be with words rather than sinking to the bottom of the barrel to make your points.

Blake said...

jdave - "Between making sure that Christian Conservative stays honest, and pointing out the stupidity of your posts, I don't have time to update mine. It's a 24 hour a day job...believe me."

BOOM! goes the dynamite. Awesome.

TangoJuliette said...

Wow! What an irate bunch of folks opposed to anything conservative or even remotely supportive of conservative thinking.

Odd thing about these people who call themselves 'progressives'/ (l) (L) (f) iberals.

Having pioneered, road-tested and perfected the darklie-fine art of demonization, character assassination, fear-mongering, insinuations of the dreaded and deadly, evil 'hidden agenda', ad hominem attacks, diversions, smoke screens, obfuscation and mis-direction, I am astonished and profoundly amazed at the pitiful sounds now emanating from liberal quarters.

Their snouts buried deep in the public trough and in kiddies' piggy-banks, the squealing sounds you hear are the sounds of stuck pigs shocked and amazed that the heretofore meek and mild, docile, dumb, namby-pamby Christians / conservatives are no longer merely turning the other cheek.

They are actually returning fire. In spades.

Of course all you Liberals are responsible for all the misery in Canada!! Aren't you claiming to be Canada's natural governing party? In fact, I read a blurb in one of 'Cross-Burnin' Fry's postings that the Liberals have ruled for all but thirteen years of the last century. While I dispute the numbers, and wonder why Doc Headie doesn't do the math from 1867 on, her contention seems to be that 87% of the past one hundred years are all the Liberals' doing. I'd certainly be ashamed at the scarcity of output over that stretch of time.

Guess you liberals have really got to step up to the counter, and finally take responsibility and the blame for all the crap you've generated in this nation of ours, and are now attempting to dump on Harper's shoulders.

Don't bring you pea shooter to this gun-fight, kiddies, you're really out-gunned: Morally, ethically, numerically, spiritually, financially and emotionally.


L.H. & K.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well said, Tango.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jdave, I still think there is a liberal agenda to swing moral values as far to the left as possible. Why did it take the Sun getting an access to information order to get at this information about polygamous obligations?

I stand by my headline.

Dirk said...

"I'd certainly be ashamed at the scarcity of output over that stretch of time."

Then that makes you an idiot of the first order. Visit a museum sometime and see what life was like in Canada 100 years ago.

Blake said...

"Don't bring you pea shooter to this gun-fight, kiddies, you're really out-gunned: Morally, ethically, numerically, spiritually, financially and emotionally."

Even if that were true, I doubt we'd be in much danger, given this bunch's propensity to turn the guns on each other (and even then, exhibiting levels of inaccuracy that would make Jose Calderon blush.)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you Dirk and Blake for your "ad hominem" logical fallacies.

Blake said...

Lack of accountability?!? Here?!? I'm frankly taken aback, Jo.

drew said...

Ok, so everyone agrees that someone who takes sexual advantage of a minor should go to jail, so what is the big debate here? Even if polygamy ever got legalized, I fail to see the problem... this is Canada so it would only be allowed between consenting adults just the same as with monogamous marriage.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"this is Canada so it would only be allowed between consenting adults just the same as with monogamous marriage."

I rest my case.

drew said...

""this is Canada so it would only be allowed between consenting adults just the same as with monogamous marriage."

I rest my case."

Meaning?

TangoJuliette said...

Oh my, angry little Dirk eh? And the name calling thing? Real high level intellectual stuff! Really. I mean it. And I've got a free house for you up in Kascheshewan, as well.

Past 100 years under mostly liberal domination? Oh yes -- residential schools are all gone, but many of the victims aren't.

According to St. Paul of the Martini, well over one million First Nations people still live in horrendous conditions.

Liberal graft and corruption and theft at new, and unheard of, highs and ferocity.

Liberal Kyoto Accord -- a VERY sacred icon in Canadian liberal theology, UP 36%!!!

Joe Volpe. The crooked Liberal Senator. Chuck Guite. Adscam. The Gun Registry. Dingwall. George Radwanski.

You want me to keep going, or is this short list sufficient to have you puff out your chest with pride? I'll bet it does!! Now, who'd you say you thought was the idiot? Just shows to go ya, at how wrong your fuzzy thinking really is. If you want to look smart, 'cause it seems you really aren't, you ought to think about keeping your mouth shut. That way, people wouldn't really know just how ignorant you truly might be.



and Blake:

One of the toughest foes in combat is not the hero-minded toughie. It's the guy who is scared witless 'cause he knows what the true dangers are.

I sincerely hope that ypou are a true red dyed in the wool pure-bred 100% Liberal card-carrying supporter.

Your innability to see the iminent death of your beloved liberal party, while staggering in it's tunnelled vision stupidity, is highly encouraging to those of us committed to the total eradication of you thieving liberal vermin. IF the two of you are the measure of Liberal supporter IQ, then I fully understand why SailorBoy Paul is looking for a job with the U.N.

By the way: ARE YOUR COLLECTIVE IQs LESS THAN YOUR COLLECTIVE WAIST LINES, HAT SIZES OR YOUR JOHNSONS?

Having read, and re-read your rivetting shallow posts, I must confess that I honestly have to concede to the irrefutable reality that if brains were made out of velvet, the two of you, combined, wouldn't have enough velvet to make spats for a one-legged canary.

L.H. & K.

Blake said...

ROFLMFAO!!! This is too much!!!

"I sincerely hope that ypou are a true red dyed in the wool pure-bred 100% Liberal card-carrying supporter."

Member of the Conservative Party, here, dude! Voted for them in the last election, and I think my boy Stephen Harper is doing a solid job to date. I just wish that the Blogging Tories would take their cues from him, a guy who thinks before acting and demands the best out of himself and those around him. The appalling lack of thought of people around here is possibly one of the greatest weaknesses to the Party. That is why Club Accountability came into being, and it is our mission to force - by persistent and direct questioning - certain Blogging Tories into being more thoughtful and less attack-dog in their stuff.

Can you take a little humour?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Drew - "Even if polygamy ever got legalized, I fail to see the problem... this is Canada so it would only be allowed between consenting adults just the same as with monogamous marriage."

I rest my case, as your liberal attitude being indulgent of polygamy and therefore evidence of a left-wing relativist agenda to plummet us down the slippery slope to social instability and lack of concern for the rights of children.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Blake - It's a big tent. Maybe a little too big at times.

Sara said...

many people in canada live with more than one spouse but it isn't called marriage and usually they don't have 45 children to raise just like them. This is not a lifestyle for the children that are born into it, this is a cult.

Blake said...

"Blake - It's a big tent."

It would need to be, to fit your head in it.

"Maybe a little too big at times."

Here's the thing, Jo - Stephen Harper is a sharp guy, very eduated, down-to-earth, and more reasonable than I thought he would be from his NCC days. He steered this party away from the hard right to a party that is actually ready to govern, and he has governed well because he thinks before he talks or acts. Why you can't take a hint from all this is beyond me. A pure mystery.

I was a member of the Reform Party, and the Canadian Alliance. I worked for both Mike Harris campaigns, and now I'm a member of the CPC, although my views have moved to the centre from the hard-right. What my values are in government is, to find the party/local candidate who will do the best job to reasonably think through the issues and do the best job for the majority of Canadians. Stephen Harper is doing that, while your example here does not. I can see one of the two of us getting squeezed out of that tent sooner, Jo, and at this point, it's you.

drew said...

"I rest my case, as your liberal attitude being indulgent of polygamy and therefore evidence of a left-wing relativist agenda to plummet us down the slippery slope to social instability and lack of concern for the rights of children."

I admit that I am very liberal (even though I don't generally vote Liberal), but my "left-wing, relativist agenda" has nothing to do with lack of concern for the rights of children, it has to do with concern for the rights and freedoms of everyone in Canada (children and adults alike). But I fail to see how polygamy, properly practiced (meaning only between consenting adults who take care of any children they may have, just as consenting monogamous adults should), is going to harm the children or bring on social instability.

My personal philosophy is that everyone should have the right to choose their path as long as it is not unnecessarily harming any others against their will, and for those of us who believe, to trust Christ to guide us in those choices.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Blake - I had no idea that to belong to CPC one had to forgo the right to Freedom of Speech. I guess I'll have to turn in my card. Thanks for the wake-up call. Funny that the local constituency office never called me about this.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Drew - "...to trust Christ to guide us in those choices."

Then read the New Testament. You'll find your answers there.

Blake said...

"I had no idea that to belong to CPC one had to forgo the right to Freedom of Speech."

Of course not, but if you're trumpeting your beliefs on a blog affiliated to the CPC, I would think basic integrity and self-respect would motivate one to produce the best quality one could muster, yes? And I actually believe you can do far better than what you are, and I'd like to see it out of you. And if I don't, I'm more than content to keep pounding away, cause at this point, I'm just getting warmed up.

"Funny that the local constituency office never called me about this."

To be fair to them, they were probably too busy thinking about ways to deny knowing you had any involvement with the Party whatsoever should they ever be asked by the media.

Blake said...

"Then read the New Testament. You'll find your answers there."

Wow, that's helpful. "Read the New Testament." Yeah, because it's not like it needs interpreted or anything.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"...but if you're trumpeting your beliefs on a blog affiliated to the CPC, I would think basic integrity and self-respect would motivate one to produce the best quality one could muster..."

Blake, if you are such a picture of conservative truth and virtue, why don't you become a Blogging Tory and show us all how it's done?

TangoJuliette said...

"...Member of the Conservative Party, here, dude!..."

Damned if your arrogant and supercilious attitude didn't have me fooled. So did your alleged offering of what you call humour.

Don't give up your "whatever it is you think you're good at." Besides name calling, from your judgemental saddle on your pseudo-conservative high horse, that is.

Because what it sounds like what's really going on here is more than a couple of folks within the same party holding diametrically opposed positions, for various and opposing reasons. You guys are taking it way beyond the pale, and you sound like arrogant closet liberals. If all bloggers here are really concerned about the issues, and keeping the liberals in opposition, there's got to be a better way than the name calling, arrogance and hostility. I do count myself in here as well.

still . . some strange and unpleasant labels for all this heat and hate, come readily to mind. I'll keep 'em to myself. For now, at least.

Blake said...

"Blake, if you are such a picture of conservative truth and virtue, why don't you become a Blogging Tory and show us all how it's done?"

1) And be affiliated with the likes of you? I'll pass, thanks.
2) No interest.
3) Other online interests - I'm a mod at www.kwas.ca, I'm one of the top posters at raptorschat.ca, I maintain 2 blogs of my own. I actually started a political blog once, didn't like doing it, and aced it. You can read my explanation here.
4) Nice attempt at distraction, by the way. The issue isn't what I would or would not do as a Blogging Tory, the issue is what you're doing. This attempt of yours smacks suspiciously of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I", and frankly, I didn't think you'd bring out the best weapon in your arsenal so early.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, Blake, I'm officially withdrawing from this little battle because really don't think there is much to be gained. From a political perspective, I agree that keeping a centrist POV is most expedient.

On the other hand, there is room for people to have personal thoughts, as is evidenced by Garth Turner and others.

I don't think that the Blogging Tory site is in any way directly linked to the CPC, but I could be wrong on that score, and if you have proof otherwise, please enlighten me.

I'm sure Stephen Taylor would have given me the boot long ago, if that were the case.

If you wish to continue belittling me and engaging in personal attacks, feel free to do so. I won't be responding. I will however delete any comment which I perceive to be over-the-top in terms of language or obnoxiousness.

Blake said...

TJ! I didn't think they allowed people in group homes to have unrestricted internet access, but I guess we're becoming a more permissive society.

"Besides name calling, from your judgemental saddle on your pseudo-conservative high horse, that is."

It's called, "reasonable, considered public policy analysis". I understand that may be a foreign concept to you, but try to keep up.

And this last post of yours is absolutely hilarious. Zero accountability whatsover! A total public face-plant, and you have the audacity to come up attempting to throw mud. Beautiful.

"If all bloggers here are really concerned about the issues, and keeping the liberals in opposition, there's got to be a better way than the name calling, arrogance and hostility. I do count myself in here as well."

The thing is, I don't care about keeping the Liberals or anybody else in opposition merely for the sake of so doing. I don't care about keeping the Conservatives in power, merely because they are the Conservative Party and I'm somehow obliged to vote for them. I want the best public policy to be done in Canada as humanly possible, and I vote for the Party that best represents a reasonable chance at getting that done. And as for this blog, I want there to be solid, reasonable exchanges of detailed public policy. If you want to take it into a mud-throwing contest, I can do that, too: better than anybody else here. But I think this Party, and Jo's blog, could benefit from more of that. Again, I note that at the upper levels of the Party itself, this doesn't seem to be much of a problem. Down here, it does. So that doesn't bode well for the future of the Party unless it can be corrected.

drew said...

"Then read the New Testament. You'll find your answers there. "

And completely ignoring the points I made in order to make comments that don't actually have anything to do with what I was getting at is helpful how, exactly?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Drew, read what I said to Blake. Ditto for you.

Blake said...

Wow, I'm impressed, Drew. I thought she maxed out with the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I", but she went even one step beyond that with the "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening". We're clearly in over our heads, now.

drew said...

Well, as there's no point throwing pearls before those who would just get them dirty I guess I'll just have to keep them to myself. I am seriously underwhelmed by these Blogging Tories though, if they were one's only exposure to the Conservative party that person would be driven to vote Liberal just to escape the assumptions and faulty logic (not to mention the avoidance of any rational discussion).

TangoJuliette said...

"TJ! I didn't think they allowed people in group homes to have unrestricted internet access, but I guess we're becoming a more permissive society."


"...It's called, "reasonable, considered public policy analysis". I understand that may be a foreign concept to you, but try to keep up..."


"Blake": If these, and other samplings, are your version of what you consider to be ,"reasonable, considered public policy analysis" I'd certainly like to know what dictionary you're using for your definitions of "reasonable", "considered analysis", "public policy" etc.

You just might have a higher IQ than first imagined. It seems saddled with a bigger chip on your shoulder. But there doesn't seem evidence of much heart. Team all this with your overpowering arrogance, and you've got a powerful beast. Makes you sound like a mental thug. Which I still see as the flip side of a mental midget. I can't wait to learn what the next radical departure will be for you to fervently embrace. Not that I really care.

Blake said...

"I am seriously underwhelmed by these Blogging Tories though, if they were one's only exposure to the Conservative party that person would be driven to vote Liberal just to escape the assumptions and faulty logic (not to mention the avoidance of any rational discussion)."

I hear ya. Loud and clear.

Blake said...

""Blake": If these, and other samplings, are your version of what you consider to be ,"reasonable, considered public policy analysis" I'd certainly like to know what dictionary you're using for your definitions of "reasonable", "considered analysis", "public policy" etc."

The same one you were using when you said I must be a Liberal.

"You just might have a higher IQ than first imagined. It seems saddled with a bigger chip on your shoulder. But there doesn't seem evidence of much heart. Team all this with your overpowering arrogance, and you've got a powerful beast. Makes you sound like a mental thug. Which I still see as the flip side of a mental midget. I can't wait to learn what the next radical departure will be for you to fervently embrace. Not that I really care."

Gotta echo my last comment. Your track record in analyzing me is about as impressive as Dalton McGuinty's promise-keeping record.

Truth be told, I've studied economics at the undergrad level, and I know good public policy debate when I see it. Right now that's not really happening here, it's just become a mud-slinging contest and attack dog show, which, while fun, isn't very meaningful. So I have no problem engaging in that when people think that passes for meaningful political discourse. jdave and joanne were doing just fine until the thread unravelled, and became "them=bad/us=good" and, for the record, I've got zero use for that.

So, if it satisfies you to attempt to villify me, it just demonstrates that your argumentation is based on privileged positions and ad hominem: abusive logic. Me, I can get into a mudslinging contest and walk away, and I think it's fun, but it's not public policy.

And don't pretend for an instant that you didn't have either of those remarks that you quoted coming. You came on here and put the throttle down full-bore and ended up hitting a wall. Don't blame me for giving the wreck a few kicks as I walk by.

TangoJuliette said...

Blake:

For all your professed accomplishments and educational acheivements, you still sound like one scared, and highly-pissed kid. Got some undergrad notches on your belt? Maybe even a Masters and/or a PhD? But still lacking a tremendous amount of understanding and maturity.

I know, I know. You and your generation discovered booze & sex, probably in your frosh year, right? You invented suffering and created artificial intelligence AND the internet too, I'll bet.

No! Wait! That was all Al Gore's genius, not yours. Sorry about the confusion there.

By the way, Dr. Donna Ward, in your neck of the woods might be a good contact person for you. Great Palliative Care Specialist. Could probably help you deal with some of your real issues and concerns. Who knows, if your bully-brainiac bit is ever ameliorated, perhaps your natural brilliance might be more readily apparent and more pallatable, to more of us mere mortals. One lives in hope for a good brain is a terrible thing to waste, especially through self-pity.

If you think that my arrival here was my first venture to this site--you're wrong. If you think that my reaction to your name-calling and smarmy put-downs was my putting the throttle down full-bore, you don't know the half of it.

Blake said...

"Got some undergrad notches on your belt? Maybe even a Masters and/or a PhD?"

Got 3 semesters left to my undergrad, when the money is there, and then it's off to grad school. Right now I'm working my way back to school, I'm in the management group in a growing company locally. So, that's what, strike eight in your attempted analysis of me? This is sad, TJ: Sammy Sosa thinks you're ridiculous.

"You and your generation discovered booze & sex, probably in your frosh year, right?"

Not much of a drinker, and I was a virgin until my honeymoon, actually. Strikes nine and ten, or some tally equally embarrassing.

"If you think that my reaction to your name-calling and smarmy put-downs was my putting the throttle down full-bore, you don't know the half of it."

So, you've self-destructed even more impressively before? I find that hard to believe.

Look, you've tried your best to get one up on me, but I'm calling it quits here for your own sake. It's pretty funny to see a guy keep missing so badly, but owning some chumpnut online so badly only amuses me so long.

Take it easy. I mean that. A guy as thick as you going at your pace is likely to do some serious damage.

TangoJuliette said...

Seriously Blake. Try Dr. Ward.