Do you know of any other Canadian M.P. who would take on a blogger in a public forum?
There are other ways to deal with these kinds of things, Garth.
For example, have an assistant contact Mr. Taylor to express your concern and displeasure, rather than relying on personal attacks such as "sock puppet" and "miscreant".
Or ask Mr. Taylor to publish a retraction if he has said anything that is not factual. Explain where he might have made an error in his calculations.
Can you think of any other M.P. in Canada who would handle criticism from a blogger in this way?
It is so sad.
Or perhaps this is a sign of things to come.
* * * *
Update: Brandon explores some possible reasons why Garth Turner may have Stephen Taylor in his sights. - Tell Me Folks...
Scott Tribe picks up the thread. An Attempt at a Gotcha Moment - for what?:
Well, first of all Scott, Garth didn't voluntarily 'defect'. He was booted out of the Conservative caucus and has apparently been angry ever since. He seems to enjoy hurling little potshots at Harper and crew, which appears to be A-O.K. with his comrades.
His blog is allegedly an information source as part of the new "digital democracy". However he often uses it as a forum to vent and attack when bloggers like Stephen Taylor challenge him. I think he would be wiser to either ignore posts that infuriate him, or else take it up quietly with the writer. But that's not his style.
Scott Tribe picks up the thread. An Attempt at a Gotcha Moment - for what?:
"...I mean, I haven’t seen any of the Liberal bloggers obsessing this much over Emerson or Khan’s defections; what blogging there was of them has long ago ceased, and in both their cases, they jumped straight to the Conservatives, unlike Garth who sat as an independent first and THEN became a Liberal..."
Well, first of all Scott, Garth didn't voluntarily 'defect'. He was booted out of the Conservative caucus and has apparently been angry ever since. He seems to enjoy hurling little potshots at Harper and crew, which appears to be A-O.K. with his comrades.
His blog is allegedly an information source as part of the new "digital democracy". However he often uses it as a forum to vent and attack when bloggers like Stephen Taylor challenge him. I think he would be wiser to either ignore posts that infuriate him, or else take it up quietly with the writer. But that's not his style.
49 comments:
I wonder how many supportive comments for Garth were posted by, well, Garth?
"So he wrote a blog about it as part of a Conservative campaign to scorch all earth upon which his leader *has not tread*."
Mr. Turner's supercilious manner and mannerisms bring out the pedant in me.
His *has not tread* should be either *has not trod* or the also accepted form *has not treaded.*
Mr. Turner seems to grow in stature in his own mind as he tries to belittle others.
Garth is and, in my limited experience of the past year or two, always has been an 'alleged' bully. His behavior is not surprising.
Good for Stephen T for calling him out.
I don't understand how Garth gets away with all these personal attacks on his blog; including calling the Prime Minister of Canada a "political whore".
I've never heard another Member of Parliament say such a thing; especially on the internet. It really lowers the bar for politicians - if that is possible.
the man is insane (will i get sued for that mr turner?)
he has a recent post talking about how he will not condone name calling on his blog by posters. Except that he does with every word that comes out of his mouth. He's one of the worst culprits.
and of course, it's only the conservatives that he's talking about. the hatred that spews from his supporters like jackie chans left hand and bill muskoka is allowed to stay put.
it's quite sad. personally, if those were the only type of supporters I had left, I'd be re-thinking the whole MP gig.
the man is insane (will i get sued for that mr turner?)
Good point.
The man is allegedly insane. That should cover it.
Or you could do what Lemon did: I wonder if the man is insane?
...and does anyone know what happenned to the blogger Reepo-Creepo?He was a serious 'Garth exposer'. He was threatened after he exposed a secret nomination meeting(Garth's Lib riding) a few months ago and hasn't been around since.
unfortunately Repo appears to have left the building.
however son of repo is at http://repossessinghalton.blogspot.com/
It's just a new verse in the Song of Garth!
The chorus goes: Mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe!
Deep Breath
Mememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememememe!
Does anyone ever read GT's blog except for comic value?
BTW - If Taylor's fact checking shows that Turner is full of crap is that a surprise to anyone but Garth?
BTW - If Taylor's fact checking shows that Turner is full of crap is that a surprise to anyone but Garth?
Allegedly full of crap. ;)
Hehe ..... Nope ...
* Demonstrably Full of Crap! *
Don't worry, you can snigger about Garth and say "oops allegedly". You are completely covered from libel, since your statements are so preposterous that nobody would believe them. Statements cannot defame him if nobody in their right mind would believe them.
plenty of believers here in Halton.
Richard, that's all that matters.
I was initially supportive of Garth, esp when he spoke out over the floor crossing of Emerson. But his personal attacks first turned me off and then turned me against him.
Now whenever I visit the blog it is filled with vitrolic ranting against the Tories, Stephen Harper, and anything or anyone conservative. Its quite sad really.
This is supposedly a grown man, but he acts worse than a child. Come on Garth, grow up!
I think what the Honourable Garth Turner forgets, is that Conservative bloggers aren't paid. We are not employed by the party. We are merely Canadians voicing our opinion.
I have never heard any other M.P. talk so publicly about a particular community of Canadians in such a disparaging manner.
I have never heard any other M.P. talk so publicly about a particular community of Canadians in such a disparaging manner.
I haven't heard it either, but I have certainly read it.
Back in 2004:
• “What we are really talking about (is) sexual behaviour”: Stephen Harper (future Prime Minister?)
• “I define the family heterosexually”: Stockwell Day (future Foreign Affairs Minister?)
• “I find it repulsive”: John Williams (future President of Treasury Board?)
• “This bedroom bill extends benefits based on sexual activity”: John Reynolds (future Government House Leader?)
• “Homosexuality is a repudiation of nature”: Art Hanger (future Minister of Immigration?)
• “Society has a right to discriminate against them”: Dave Chatters (future Minister of Natural Resources?)
• “It is unnatural and totally immoral”: Myron Thompson (future Minister of Justice?)
Comuzzi quits Cabinet over Same-Sex Bill.
Want me to continue?
*Yawn.*
Liberal Supporter, you are losing your edge.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-aha-ha!!!!!
We're not angry, buddy. We're laughing at you!!!!!
Hey LS. Please explain this.
"About 35 Liberal MPs are expected to vote against Bill C-38, establishing the Civil Marriage Act, in Tuesday night's vote."
I see you have been reading my comments elsewhere!
Feel free to continue to plagiarize them all you like. You don't need to put dashes in the haha lines to make them look different than mine, unless you are concerned it will look like a word with more than 10 letters, and make you look like a nascar hating elitist ivory tower out of touch snob.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
I thought GT kind of ASKS for it!
Does LS worry that Garth might get his feeling hurt?Or that he needs to be defended?
Quiz: what happens when an ego-maniac gets his balloon popped?
Answer: Just keep watching!
Garth had a secret nomination meeting, but for everything else he wants to be out in the public.
He really is pathetic. Stephen Taylor must really have irritated him. Good.
Garth is quite the attention whore, I don't know of many actually important people who require their own videographer the way he does. The problem is that the more people ignore him the more outlandish he will get. I imagine his job is safe for now though. I mean how low would he have to stoop before being kicked out of the Liberal party?
liberal supporter ..er.. I mean Garth, .. aren't you supposed to be someplace else to have your picture taken?
Hey Liberal Supporter: Why is it that with Liberals, everything comes down to gay sex?? You think with the world today, there should be more pressing matters. Not everybody thinks the way you and other "progressives" do, so maybe you should try to be more tolerant. Just a suggestion.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Sorry I didn't have the syntax just right.
Hey Liberal Supporter: Why is it that with Liberals, everything comes down to gay sex??
It doesn't, it is only your own fixations that would make you think that.
I know "context" and "nuance" are cast as liberal things, but you'll have to try to follow along. I referenced SSM because Joanne was acting as if Garth is speaking about a group of Canadians in a more disparaging way than any other MP has.
Please try to understand the context, In my opinion Garth is being a buffoon, but the point was that contrary to Joanne's view, he is no more so than the whole bunch of CPC MPs I quoted.
That context appears to have been completely missed, because the responses are about MPs voting against SSM. What has the SSM vote have to do with this claim that Garth is more disparaging than any other MP?
So the point was that Garth's disparaging comments are not some "over the top" thing as Joanne tried to make it out to be. I'm not making a defense of Garth, I'm simply calling Joanne on a bogus claim.
Interesting though, it appears the CPC/BT noise machine is a little sensitive on these SSM things, and launched the usual attempts to change the channel.
Oh, yes, and nice try with the passive-aggressive "sorry I didn't have the syntax right". Still working the elitist ivory tower routine eh? Of course it's that pesky old context again. I never said your haha's syntax was wrong, I said you probably broke it down so your more cretinous readers would not be confused. It was not a pedantic schoolmarm routine, it was an insult, fool!
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!
What's it with these Liberals getting so cranky lately?
What's it with these Liberals getting so cranky lately?
Hey, that was supposed to be my line! Though I prefer "knickers in a knot" when referring to CPCers.
I'm doing my best here to play straight man for you. I even laugh at all your stuff.
Let's try again:
So Joanne, what's with all that Liberal rage over nothing?
(cue)
I don't understand... how is disagreeing with SSM 'hateful'. It's an opinion. Since when is an opinion considered hateful.
Hate is when you use denigrating language. It's name calling (mmm... like calling everyone that simply disagrees with SSM a homophobe, THAT'S hateful).
Last time I checked, we still had some sort of freedom of speech. How you can compare someone expressing an opinion that may be different from yours, with someone who is vulgar, who belittles and slanders is baffling to me.
I'm doing my best here to play straight man for you.
Oh, are we still on the gay marriage theme?
The gay marriage theme will never be over. The lib's keep bringing it up, over and over. It's getting wearisome, I can tell you.
Let it go.. it was debated, it was dealt with... some people agree, some people don't.. just LET IT GO.
And yeah, I agree with anon... disagreeing with homosexual activity is an opinion, its not hate. I too am tired of everyone who might have a different opinion of something being 'labeled' as a hater.
Oh, are we still on the gay marriage theme?
Ha, I knew you would get the double entendre of comedian and "straight" man.
Apparently everyone else here is on the gay marriage theme though. Why that is, I do not know. Now it's "it's not hateful to be anti-gay". Nothing of the kind was stated in this thread, but your commenters want to pretend it was and react to it. They seem to feel they are being harmed somehow and have their cult of victimhood hand wringing down quite pat. They just need to learn to save it for when they are actually being called the things they are reacting to.
All to change the channel from the fact that I was simply rebutting your assertion about Garth being more disparaging than eny other MP.
Oh well, since we're already on the dreaded topic, here's an interesting discussion going on about tolerance vs. good taste. Where do we draw the line?
(Explicit photo and gay phone sex ad in city of Hamilton publication).
Liberal supporter:
Nice move, bait and switch. You've skillfully taken the topic off from where it was (Garth Turner) and onto a topic which you feel is more easily defended (homosexuality/SSM).
In any case, the moment that I knew I'd never vote Liberal again occured when I received pamphlets from the Liberal Party essentially stating that being anti-SSM was a threat to the nation. Garth Turner used the same scorched earth practice in attacking SSM supporters a while back too.
That is why so-cons respond to the SSM issue as they do. Because they've become accustomed to being personally attacked by liberals on the issue.
Arguing that Garth is 'no worse than any other MP' is hardly a rallying cry. Especially one who makes such a big deal about other people making personal attacks on him. So really, if we just said he was a hypocrite you'd be fine?
If I follow L.S.'s convoluted path of attempted logic, I believe he is saying that because I said the following in an earlier comment:
I have never heard any other M.P. talk so publicly about a particular community of Canadians in such a disparaging manner.
So then L.S. brought up some quotes that were somehow supposed to refute what I was saying by demonstrating that some Conservative M.P.'s were against SSM, and therefore that somehow is just as bad as what Garth is doing.
Well, I can't buy it because I never heard any of those MP's publicly denigrate a particular person belonging to said group. Also, several Liberal politicians were equally adamant in their lack of support regarding SSM. I'm sure if I googled Tom Wappel and a few others I could come up with lots of ammunition.
But S.O. is right. Liberal Supporter is a master at deflecting the real issue. What's more, he purports to be engaging in a civil conversation, but if you read his comments on other blogs, he doesn't hold anything back with the vitriol and the personal attacks (especially against Blogging Tories and yours truly in particular).
BTW, Southern Ontarioan, I used to admire Garth Turner too. I had criticized something or other he was doing in the comments on his blog, and he asked me to call him, which I did. We had a great talk, and I printed a retraction on my own blog saying what a great guy he was.
I took a lot of heat for that from some of my fellow BT's. Turns out they were right, I guess.
Its hard to judge what kind of person someone is, even if you know them for several years.
Personally I have been disappointed by Harper, but quite frankly there is no one else that I can vote for. I'd consider returning to my NDP roots if they stopped being so silly but alas, its not to be. And the Green party has become just as bad or worse than the NDP so...
Garth Turner is very outspoken, too outspoken and too argumentative. Sometimes you need to be argumentative but often you shouldn't be. Although I agreed with him early on, I disliked his method of getting his point across and so wasn't surprised when he was dumped from the CPC.
His style can be easily compared to say Van Loan or Baird, both of whom will resort to petty personal attacks if necessary. However, the big difference is that both Baird and van Loan also know how to be diplomatic and work co-operatively to acheive things. (see Baird and the Accountability Act dance for example) Garth doesn't seem to.
Well, I can't buy it because I never heard any of those MP's publicly denigrate a particular person belonging to said group.
You're quite the master of deflecting the real issue yourself. Now it's "a particular person". That's not what you said. You said "disparaging a particular group". The quotes I provided would seem to be to be disparaging a particular group.
It seems you think "Society has a right to discriminate against them" is no big deal.
That's the point. You're so offended with whatever Garth says, but did he say you should be discriminated against?
And yes, southernontarian, it's fine by me for you to call Garth a hypocrite. If you want to say Garth talks about people in a disparaging way, that's fine too. But if you want to claim he is the most hypocritical, or the most disparaging, then I may choose to challenge the veracity of such a statement.
Joanne: "calling the Prime Minister of Canada a "political whore".... "I've never heard another Member of Parliament say such a thing; especially on the internet. It really lowers the bar for politicians"
How can you write with a straight face that this is worse than Harper suggesting Dion is more concerned about the well-being of the Taliban than that of our Canadian forces? In fact, this smear from Harper sets the bar a good deal lower than Turner's remark, and at the same time provides proof that Turner is actually correct on this point.
CG - Get me the original quote, and I'll explain the difference.
Joanne, I found the quote. Dissecting it will not be instructive. Do you actually deny that Harper insinuated Dion is more concerned for the Taliban's well-being than the Canadian troops'? Just say so and we'll be done. If careful parsing of the quote is necessary in order for you to argue innocent intent, I think it's safe to say that most Canadians would have read (or heard ) it the way that I did. The fact that we both remember the incident is rather telling, wouldn't you agree?
No, I don't agree. I remember the comment, but not the exact context. If it was said in the House, that is different than out in the public domain of the internet or blog, because there is some kind of rule of privilege within Parliament, where MP's are allowed to be more frank than outside.
Also, describing a behaviour is different from calling a person a name. Hence your calling Harper "BEELZEBUBBA" is worse than saying that he is devil-like.
Joanne, when you refer to a rule of privilege and say "MP's are allowed to be more frank", what do you mean? Do you mean that you personally give them more latitude than you would were they commenting or posting on a blog (or in some other way communicating via the internet)? I'm sure that many many more Canadians heard about Harper's characterization of Dion's position respecting the Taliban on March 21 than will ever hear about Garth Turner's description of Harper as a "political whore".
The quote was "I can understand the passion that the leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for the Taliban prisoners... I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers."
It's a despicable thing to say. Alas, it's the usual crap, with Harper trying to paint his opponents as unpatriotic. It's actually a lie.
Do you mean that you personally give them more latitude
No, Parliamentary Privilege (if that's what it is called) is a fact. You may have heard MP's say to one another that they dare them to say the same thing "outside".
BTW, thanks for finding the exact quote. Personally, I have no problem with what Harper said at all.
Joanne: "Personally, I have no problem with what Harper said at all."
I didn't expect you to have a problem with it. In fact, I doubt that you've ever taken exception to anything that he has said. I was only pointing out that it sets the bar for MPs' behaviour substantially lower than Turner's indelicately phrased observation about Harper.
Well, that's your opinion, Crabgrass, and you're entitled to it.
Yes, it's not so shocking that we differ. Have a nice evening!
Thanks! You too.
Post a Comment