Thursday, July 05, 2007

Put a lid on it Jack! - Reposted with important updates.

Jonathan Kay's excellent column in the National Post's blog, Full Comment, made it onto the editorial page this morning - They died for a good cause. (Thanks again to Darcey for that blog link.)

Kay takes Jack Layton to task for using the deaths of our Canadian soldiers as a political platform to reinforce his view that we should pull out of Afghanistan immediately. Worse, his actions may well be putting the lives of the troops in even greater peril:

Mr. Layton symbolizes why the West may just lose the battle against militant Islam: As soon as our enemies draw blood, he reflexively raises the white flag higher, offering to withdraw from whatever part of the world the jihadis happen to be targeting.


Warren Kinsella also raises the concern about the power of the media and how terrorists can use it to their advantage in a war of propaganda and demoralization (Don't give terrorists the attention they crave).


This of course will always raise the weary debate about how criticism of the mission is part of free speech and should not be stifled. I really do think there is a time for this discussion, and it is not immediately following the death of a soldier.

Kerry Townsend is a parent of an Afghanistan soldier and has just been interviews on Newstalk 570. I will update this post after hearing the rest of Jeff Allan's show. Her comments against Layton are scathing.

Lots more to come.

Meanwhile, read Sandy's latest post - Layton Promoting Defeatism.


* * * *
Update #1: I wish you could all have listened to Jeff's show this morning from 9 to 10 a.m. Very enlightening.

Brief summary - Kerry Townsend, who is the mother of a Canadian soldier and part of a local support group, said that one of the cruelest things someone can say is that your child died 'for nothing'. Have a discussion, fine, but don't use the immediate aftermath of the deaths of their children as your political springboard. This is from my notes, so not an exact quote, but you get the picture.

Jack Layton was his usual arrogant and la-la land-ish self. Layton advcated a 'comprehensive peace process' which would work towards a ceasefire and also involve reconstruction.

Jeff asked Layton how we would do that if people are shooting at us?

Layton obfuscated and muttered something about discussions being the first steps.

I don't know about you, but I really doubt some of those characters so bent on severing blindfolded heads with any available implement would be much into 'discussions'.

On the other hand, Jack is very adept at his role as a talking head, so maybe he could volunteer.


* * * *

Update #2: (Noon) Last night I was fortunate to catch an interview with a mother of a Canadian soldier on the local 6 o-clock news. Knowing that they usually reran news clips at 11:30 p.m., I threw a tape in the VCR before going to bed.

I just had a chance to review the tape. The mother is the same one interviewed on Jeff Allan's show this morning, but the T.V. news station had her name spelled "Townson" rather than "Townsend", and they listed her as belonging to "Families of Canadian Soldiers in Afghanistan".

Anyway, not being able to find any online links, I transcribed the clip myself.

Here is Kerry Townson's message (emphasis added according to her inflection):

"Our only fear is that when there is a lot of discussion in the media, after there have been fatalities, it's not a time for political debate; it is a time for empathy, and for sharing grief - not for debate over the mission.

This is exactly what the Taliban wants, and that's when attacks increase".


Could someone please deliver this message to Jack Layton?


* * * *
Friday Update: Newstalk 570 now has a link about Kerry Townsend. - Local Military Mom says Now is Not the Time for Politics.




70 comments:

Sandy said...

Great minds think alike. I'll link.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Sandy. I was really impressed with Kinsella's column too. It is one of his best ones, IMHO.

Jeff Davidson said...

i don't understand. we can't question the mission in afghansitan because soldiers have mothers?

as for kinsella, he's right, let's lay off the rhetoric. however, i can't imagine a sinlge hour of a single day passing w/o something about the muslim bogeyman posted at the blogging tories.

Kai_Wolf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jeff, it's all about timing, and the inherent responsibility of MSM and politicians. Sorry you didn't quite pick up on that.

Kai_Wolf said...

Negotiation is a two way street where both sides give and take. So tell us Mr. Layton. What can we possibly offer the Taiban (short of our unconditional capitulation) for our part in negotiation that will make them stop what they are doing, when all they want is us gone and for them to control Afghanistan again under their terrorist regime. Tell us, oh magnificient Layton. We thirst for your wisdom.

PGP said...

Layton is a complete fool!
Only those who enable him have more to answer for.

Caveman said...

Jeff, questioning the mission with both feet squarely on the still warm bodies of 6 dead soldiers is the problem here. It shows that Layton is a despicable little twit who cares more for his (misguided) cause than for common decency. If you can't understand that, you're beyond hope. I think we all know what Layton's position is, so he can stop yammering - especially on a day when 6 men, better than he will ever be, gave their lives. The smart people in this country know he's full of shite. The rest, well, they're too self-absorbed and effete to ever understand anything beyond their precious sensibilities and sense of entitlement.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Caveman, that was amazing.

NB Tory Lady said...

How Jack Layton and any of his NDP co-horts can allow what comes out of their mouths is beyond me. I listen to their "we have to have dialogue and no more fighting" talk and my blood pressure rises because I cannot understand why they do not understand that they have the chicken before the egg...what they want comes in at some time...yes...it cannot be now...they blow up anything we do...they love to blow up things...it's what they do!!! I hope Layton and DeeeeeYawwwn stop playing to the enemy...it is so irresponsible. Private dialogue can be had at any time within parliament...why does it have to be center stage...I will tell you why...because this is what they feel is their best weapon...having no other options as they are without solutions and sensibility.

PMSH has it right and thank goodness he is around to bring Canadians back to center.

"Time to mourn soldiers, not debate mission"

"Parliament has approved... (the mission) until February 2009, but obviously today is not the day to have a political debate on the future of the mission, we have the House of Commons for that,"

"Today is a day to express our condolences for these soldiers, to their families, to their comrades but as well to emphasize the support that we all share as parliamentarians for the important work that they do on behalf of our country."


Thanks for your post joanne.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Layton's press conference was held before the news of the latest casualties broke, and was scheduled several days in advance. You're free to disagree with his message, but the timing was purely coincidental (and again, Layton spoke before, not after, the report came out).

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Actually, Layton's press conference was held before the news of the latest casualties broke

It would be interesting to know how the leaders of the federal parties get this type of news. I'm sure it's not through MSM, and I'm willing to bet it's far in advance of anything that is released for public consumption.

Laurie Norrie said...

My heart is very heavy today but I am so grateful to our military and their families for their chosen careers, doing the "dirty work" so our democracy can continue, they are so brave.

Check out the Toronto Star's editorial today, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Laurie, I share your feelings - sadness, gratitude and profound admiration.

Yes, the editorial in today's Star was a very uplifting.

The fact that the Toronto Star has contradicted Jack Layton's POV has got to give him pause for thought.

Brian in Calgary said...

Thanks for the link to the editorial, Joanne. I always thought that the day The Star ran an editorial that made sense would be the day that pigs would fly. I am happy to be wrong.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Brian, I did hear a report today that hell has frozen over...

paulsstuff said...

"Actually, Layton's press conference was held before the news of the latest casualties broke, and was scheduled several days in advance. You're free to disagree with his message, but the timing was purely coincidental (and again, Layton spoke before, not after, the report came out)."

Well, that seems to conflict with what was reported on with the news media.Here's a clip:

“Jack Layton didn’t waste any time in handing the Taliban a propaganda victory yesterday. No sooner did news reach Canadian shores about the death of six of our soldiers than the NDP leader again urged an end to Canadian military operations in Afghanistan. Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Layton declared that ‘this simply underlines, with this escalating death toll of the soldiers and of civilians in Afghanistan, that this mission is going in the wrong way.’”

Perhaps you meant it was planned before, because he sure brought up the latest casualties.

And his wife Olivia Chow was just on CP24. She state4 the reason we went into Afghanistan was to capture Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps she should get her facts straight before making an ass of herself on tv.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone read the book:
I ACCUSE: Jimmy Carter by Philip Pilevsky.

Pilevsky was interviewed on the Laura Ingraham radio show yesterday and he said that Militant Islam existed for hundreds of years as a fringe group but once the state of Iran came to be it gained a base, and when it gained a base, it gained a legitimacy, when it gained a base and a legitimacy, it became a transnational movement, and America armed Militant Islam in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
The only reason this happened is because of the neglect and administration of Jimmy Carter who just didn’t get it and still doesn’t.
Carter advises us to be patient with Hamas and not overly offend Hamas.
But nobody worries about offending Christians, as the following story relates:
How about some of your concern in this direction Jimmy?

ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell, La., on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

The "news media" quotes is, in fact, wrong. The NDP press conference was announced through an advisory on July 3, a day before the deaths, for 11am. News that six NATO soldiers had been killed hit the wire at 11:30. The deaths weren't confirmed as Canadian until 12:45ish.

Anonymous said...

Let me explain it a little better. The conference might have been planned earlier, but the six deaths was brought up by Layton in that media event. Your original post stated the conference was held before the announcement of the casualties. So how can that be when Layton himself mentioned it?

If you don't believe me go to ctv.ca and watch the video.

paulsstuff

Anonymous said...

He didn't bring up the deaths; he was asked about it at the end of the news conference after word got out to the reporters who were there, via berry and news alerts, most likely. He also expressed condolences first, and only mentioned at the conclusion of his comments that it reinforced his belief that the mission is on the wrong track. That's a far cry from the implication that his entire press conference - and his position on withdrawal - were explicitly driven by news of more Canadian casualties. That is simply not the case.

Anonymous said...

Watched Olivia Chow on CityPulse at noon and couldn't believe what came out of her mouth, unchallenged by the host. Clearly a match made in heaven for Layton.

Can his party not see that perhaps it's time for a new leader? He's killing what's left of the dippers.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

He didn't bring up the deaths; he was asked about it at the end of the news conference after word got out to the reporters who were there, via berry and news alerts, most likely.

well, I wonder how many talk show interviews he did between now and then? Jeff Allan's for sure. And believe me, he pushed his agenda.

Anonymous said...

Joanne - I agree with you that Kinsella's column today is VERY good.
I think he's right(make that centre-right).

Jambon

SouthernOntarioan said...

Jack Layton is the #1 reason why my family stopped supporting the NDP and why we cannot cast a vote for them now.

That being said, it appears anonymous is correct:

"Speaking before it was confirmed the six dead were Canadians, Layton, said voters should voice their opposition to the war by backing his party in the byelections, expected before summer's end."

Meanwhile, there is no excuse for Dion using the event to criticize Harper: "Dion's news conference came a few hours after NDP Leader Jack Layton..."

Personally I'm sick and tired of opposition MPs trotting out every time one of our soldiers die and talk about pulling out or criticizing the Harper government. Can't they at least wait 24 hours?

Zac said...

Left you a few links at my place Joanne.

Brian S. said...

Why exactly does Jack Layton's opinion count any more than that of lets say .. the Shakey Lady who sometimes begs for coin at the corner of Yonge and Bloor? She hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of ever becoming Prime Minister of Canada either, so why doesn't the MSM pester her for an opinion. OK bad example, she is probably a little too Conservative for them.

Without the MSM Jack Layton might just have to babble his disjointed thoughts to an audience of the homeless, on some otherwise deserted back alley in downtown Toronto, rather than on National TV.

Just because the MSM continues too feed this poor fellows delusions of grandeur doesn't mean we have to.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, you continue to amaze me.


Brian, now you're getting to the "Crux of the Matter" if Sandy will excuse me. MSM is incredibly competitive about scooping the next guy, but where does social responsibility come in? So Jack gives a good sound-byte. So what?

How about if MSM boycotted Taliban Jack for maybe a day? Or a week?

Is that some kind of heresy? I think he deserves a little time-out to think about what's coming out of his mouth, and how it's affecting the troops. A little soul-searching, and maybe even a field trip to the 'sandbox'.

Brian S. said...

I think Jack Layton commands far more media attention than his standing as the leader of a perpetually losing party warrants, because his left wing opinions reflect those of the MSM.

Many in the MSM want Canada out of Afghanistan even more than Jack Layton does and are more than happy to let him voice his opinion, as well as draw the resulting scorn, because it keeps most of the heat away from them.

Jack Layton deserves a long time out, but it is the MSM who deserve our unqualified contempt.

benalbanach said...

"Taliban Jack"...Will be proven correct. You lot will of course deny you ever supported this dumb venture when the time comes for pull-out.
You folks "play" with war to bolster your own egos.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"Taliban Jack"...Will be proven correct.

Ben-whatever, perhaps you could expand a bit on that thought?

Brian S. said...

Sorry, I must have left the door open... it looks like one of Jack's homeless friends from the back alley wandered in.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

it looks like one of Jack's homeless friends from the back alley wandered in.

Either that or one of Red Tory's.

liberal supporter said...

Ah yes, brian s. The homeless.

Can I count on your support for the poll tax bill then? And the companion bill requiring payment before voting? That way, only those who have money need vote. After all, they pay the taxes.

That means Jack will get no votes and with no seats in the House of Some of the Commons, the MSM will not have to cover him.

Then we can really escalate our world military presence, with a draft. That'll get those homeless bums off the streets. So they can go to other countries and kill other homeless people. I mean really, a nomad living in a tent or cave can hardly be considered as "not homeless".

Yay!

Jake said...

On Adler today Layton said that he knew about the deaths before he began the conference. I don't doubt that he called the conference a day or two prior to the event. However I rather enjoyed jack and steffies comments if only because it shows how completely irrellavent they both are to Canadian politics. Kinda feel like telling them "Now jack & steffie run along we grown ups are talking." How about this for a slogan? Socialists like children should be seen but not heard. In other words we need to keep an eye on them so they don't hurt themselves but because their drivel is irrational it serves only as a distraction. I might add a dangerous distraction at that.

liberal supporter said...

Yes jake, we should have those dangerous traitors, Dion and Layton, beheaded at the Skydome. That would show the world "Canada is back" in the dark ages.

And it would scare those Taliban out of attacking us here. Talk about killing two birds with one blade.

And with the socialists all drafted and fighting wars elsewhere, life would be grand!

jake said...

Liberal Supporter wrote, "Yes jake, we should have those dangerous traitors, Dion and Layton, beheaded at the Skydome. That would show the world "Canada is back" in the dark ages."

Why would you want to kill jack and steffie? I wouldn't want them killed. They are the best supporters the conservatives ever had. By beaking off the way they are Canadians will never vote for them in significant enough numbers to matter. Me thinks they both have political tin ears.

liberal supporter said...

Ha ha jake, ok, you win that one!

Brian S. said...

liberal supporter: I was unaware that the homeless had any particular party affiliation but now that you mention it the Liberal record on affordable housing leaves a lot to be desired.

After chairing a Liberal Task Force on Housing in 1990, Paul Martin somehow managed to wait until 2006 to announce his New Deal for Cities and that he was finally ready to consider thinking about it, depending on which way the wind was blowing. After 13 years in power, housing was not exactly a Liberal priority wouldn't you say? As Premier of Ontario, Bob Ray set the cause of affordable housing back decades by placing welfare recipients into luxury condos and the resulting backlash should ensure to this day that he never becomes Prime Minister.

What the homeless require can never come from Liberal indifference, or NDP pie in the sky ideals, or even from Conservative economic platforms, but from a sustained and non partisan effort.

SouthernOntarioan said...

Beheading in the Skydome... sounds familiar.. wait, is it similar to the trouncing that the Blue Jays receive every time they play there?

Crabgrass said...

Joanne: "I really do think there is a time for this discussion, and it is not immediately following the death of a soldier."

So when do you think would be a good time to look critically at the mission, Joanne?

Speaking of timing, is now a good time for conservatives to trumpet Canada's role in Afghanistan and pound their chests, while continuing to insist that supporting the troops means supporting the mission? Or would that constitute politicization of the deaths in just the same way?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Crabgrass, why don't you tell Red Tory to ask those questions himself instead of sending over one of his toadies?

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:
Hey Crabgrass!
Did you and your ilk discuss the deployment when it was a Liberal action in 2002? Did you discuss it when the first Canadian died back then? Can you name the first dead trooper? Or troopers? Was there more than one, that first time? did you, at that time, fight to have the media on the Trenton Tarmac? Did you, at that time, fight to have the Parliament Hill flag lowered to half-staff ? When did your concern begin to manifest itself, on behalf of Canada's youth in uniform? Was it when the Liberals were responsible for 10 dead? 15 dead? 25 dead? Or did the flow of your crocodile tears start sometime after Martin and his thieving Lib pals got bowled over, and were voted out of office?
This is a democracy, contrary to what all you liberal "progressives" like to believe. This democracy is not strictly about you guys, and your little group of elitist buddies who think that only they know what's good for this nation, so yes: it is ALWAYS a good time for Canadian citizens to discuss any number of important issues. But note: sometimes, some certain issues are best discussed out of the hearing of one's foes, however. Note that the operative word above, is ALWAYS. Not just AFTER you lose control of the Government.
Please. Convince me, beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt, that you and all your currently-"concerned" friends, honestly harboured these very same sentiments, thoughts and feelings, when the troops were being killed in Afghanistan, at a time when peasant-strangling ti-Jean was PM, or when dithering Martin was PM, when apoplectic Bill Graham was Minister of National Defence.
If you have no hard-copy concrete evidence to prove your consistency, then you likely are no better than the whores and camp-followers of yesterday's wars, greedily leeching life from the warriors, and ghoulishly using tragedies of the returning bodies of their dead comrades-in-arms as macabre stepping stones in your attempts to exact even the smallest of measures of advantage over the political party that threw your thieving, lying, cheating and arrogant elitist asses out of office.
tj

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

G R E A T Donato cartoon in Friday a.m. TorSun. Donnie nails Jack! perfectly.

You're welcom.

tj

liberal supporter said...

How do you really feel tj?

liberal supporter said...

liberal supporter: I was unaware that the homeless had any particular party affiliation but now that you mention

No, brian s., you mentioned it:
Sorry, I must have left the door open... it looks like one of Jack's homeless friends from the back alley wandered in.

But I agree with this:

What the homeless require can never come from Liberal indifference, or NDP pie in the sky ideals, or even from Conservative economic platforms, but from a sustained and non partisan effort.

The safety net should be sufficient to survive with dignity, but it should not provide a disincentive to improve oneself. Pie in the sky perhaps, but smarter thinking is needed in this.

Crabgrass said...

Joanne: "Crabgrass, why don't you tell Red Tory to ask those questions himself instead of sending over one of his toadies?"

I wasn't aware that RT had toadies. That's sort of unfair, isn't it?

Anyway Joanne, did you understand my question?

Juliette, I'm sure I did discuss this mission with others of my ilk in 2002. I didn't favour it then, and remain unconvinced of its merits, to say the very least. And while I enjoy the thought of possessing an elitist ass (I'm less tickled about the descriptors "thieving, lying, cheating and arrogant"), I've never really called myself a Liberal. I have generally seen them as the lesser of 2 electable evils. In fact, I really only became somewhat preoccupied with politics immediately following January 23, 2006, and have since developed a very strong desire to see the back of Harper. Figuratively, I mean.

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:


Re:

"liberal supporter said...
How do you really feel tj?

Fri Jul 06, 12:25:00 PM EDT "

If you realy gotta ask, I'll send you some simple stick figure pictures. It might make it all just a tad easier to understand.

Bet you dollars to navel lint that there won't be too much corroborative hard copy evidence forthcoming from any of those presently harshest of critics of the Afghanistan Deployment.

The hypocricy! The hypocricy! The cold and vile, callous, opportunistic partisanship.

I'm waiting . . . .

from 2002 . . to Jan 2006: There should be a veritable vault of CBC, CTV, file clips, a horrendous deluge of video, audio, hard copies from all dailies, of letters to Eds., Editorials, punditocratic expostulations and expository pronouncements, against the then-Liberal govt's war in Afghanistan. At least something on a par to what started flowing after 2006. Anything? Anything at all, anywhere?

tick - tock! tick - tock!

Time is running out, as we lead up to the grand denoument. Stand by please, 'cause here comes Liberal/progressive self-condemnation of their left-yap buddies, through absence of any little bits of corroborating evidence.

Just as I suspected --

thanks, for finally revealing the depths of your shallowness.

tj

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anyway Joanne, did you understand my question?

Yes.

Crabgrass said...

Excellent.

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sex:

Crabgrass:

Don't TELL me about all your discussions of yesteryear. SHOW ME! SHOW ME THE PAPERWORK. Produce hard copies of letters, blogs, e-mails etc., with the same, or at least, with a similar fire to them, as you currently seem to summon up, today, when dealing with this issue.

Quick. No googling nor anything like that: Who was the first Cdn. Soldier to die on the Liberal Watch? When? How? Did you lobby for flag-lowerings, Trenton Tarmac full-court press media coverage? In other words, did you, BACK THEN, want all the same things you seem to want now? Can you back up that possible contention? Or, did this all start as a major liberal movement, in a foul plot hatched to attempt to discredit the present government, by running rough-shod over those soldiers whose lives were lost, but embarking on this tack ONLY AFTER the Conservatives won the election?

Cold. Chilling, brutal, callous, uncaring and insensitive, calculatingly and vicously cold! Certainly and very definitely un-Canadian, in the extreme.

Your "progressive" approach is just about as bad as any of the worst possible characteristics you might want to attribute to some of our less savoury neighbours to the south.

tick-tock! tick-tock!

tj

Crabgrass said...

Juliet: "Don't TELL me about all your discussions of yesteryear. SHOW ME! SHOW ME THE PAPERWORK. Produce hard copies of letters, blogs, e-mails etc.,"

Um,... I shredded them. Before the rules came in.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Um,... I shredded them.

Now that was funny!

Crabgrass said...

Why thank you!

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette Sez:

Bzzztttpphhftt! Wrong answer, my dear Crabgrass. Wrong. On two counts.

1.) The issue of "consistency" is almost a natural law of the universe. It is not, as you so coyly tried to play it, something newly arrived on our political stage, "...before the rules came in."

2.) The correct defence which you should have offered up, dear Crabgrass, According to the BlackBook of Evil Lib Black Deeds,
vol. 12 Page 813, para. 78.5. sub.sect.91 A: [smile your best innocent and dimpled smile, disarmingly declare: "...Our fearless and totally incomprehsible leader, had his trusty dog Toyoto, eat my homework! Honest. I DID have the hard copies."

Looks like the unfortunately true bottom line in this scenario is that you, and the countless other Liberal minions like yourself, are not so much the great defenders of our fallen troops that you procalim yourselves to be, as much as you all are violators of the sanctity of their meories and sacrifices, when you hypcritically, insensitively and heartlessly stomp across their coffins and graves, in some demented attempts at getting at prime Minister Harper, in the hopes that your vile manipulations of the tragic deaths of the valiant youth of Canada, will somehow lead to the unseating of the current Conservative Government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Canada will never again subscribe to, nor electorally support, the morally, socially and ethically bankrupt gang of thieves commonly know as the Liberal Party of Canada. Yours tulyy, especially.

tick-tock...


tj

Crabgrass said...

Juliette, are you an opera singer?

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

CG: Yeah. Oh YEAH!! Opera? Do it all the time, my leetle chickadee... Learned most of it at Jump School back in the early sixties.

I specialize in Verdi's "Requiem for the Thieves of Ottawa," as well as Verdi's "La Tiquetoqueotta."

That'd translate to :

tick-tock, time's running out for you.

still waiting.


Joke all you want folks. But if you CANNOT substantively prove a five-year long consistency of your opposition to the troubles in Afghanistan, you are indeed, one truly sorry lot of hard-hearted, grossly cynical, partisan stooges, playing political gamesmanship on the graves of dead Canadian military personnel. You are poor comics, worse citizens, and certainly -- beneath reproach.

tj

Crabgrass said...

Juliette: "You are .... beneath reproach."

Well now, there's a bit of good news for me! Just as I was starting to worry about that very thing.

Juliette, are you this dramatic in all matters? Maybe that's the question I should have asked.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Once you get TJ going, there's no calling him off. You may as well wave the white flag now.

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

CG.

Nope. This outrageous behaviour of "the progressives" is about the only regressive and retrograde conduct on this issue that really gets to me.

That, and making bad, evil, thieving Liberals become an endangered species. [the only "good" Liberals would be of the convicted and incarcerated variety.]

AND...working towards giving this great country a chance to heal as much as possible, in as many ways as possible, so that Canada, and all Canadians, can live up to the amazing potential which exists here. Or, more accurately, which "existed" here, before we let the Grits run the table as they say for "seventy-five perecent of the last one hundred years."

See the problems they've left us? In addition to the fallacies inherent in faulty selective math. No, I got it, don't give me the answer. They only choose to count the last 100 years, while fudging the percentages just une p'tite peu, 'cause the were barely in office for but five years of the first forty years of Confederation. What's that, like? Certainly not anywhere close to the puffed-up and inflated alleged 75% of the time.

tick-tock. . . .


tj

Crabgrass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crabgrass said...

Well, Joanne, there does appear to be an air of tireless enthusiasm there. And I do have to eat. And sleep.

So, for the heads up... many tanks.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I'm just glad Teej's on my side. I sure can't keep up with him.

Crabgrass said...

Joanne: "I'm just glad Teej's on my side."

Ah, yes, but I have God.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Crabgrass, sorry I called you a RT toadie. You're not at all. You've got a great sense of humour.

Crabgrass said...

No problem. I was just instructed to forgive.

Crabgrass said...

Oops, forgot - have a great weekend!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I was just instructed to forgive.

lol! I'm sure glad to know someone with a direct line.

Have a good weekend yourself.

Anonymous said...

Tango Juliette sez:

CG:
Please bring me up to snuff about the Opera question. You've piqued my curiosity.

And yes, dramatic times suhc as these, call for dramatic responses. Much has been said about the recent wars of "blood for oil."

I must admit that much of today's opposition and outrage originating from the left/lib/non-Harper/non-conservative side of the room seems to me to be a very close approximation of a campaign which seem to be based on "Blood of young Canadians for Liberal votes."

I may be wrong here. But really,though, I don't think that I am.

Please see Saturday Globe & Mail for the tally sheet of Canadian Deceased, most of which ocurred under the Liberal Deployment, and most of which could be almost directly attributed to those Chretien-cancellations, in 1993, of the Mulroney-ordered helicopters.

Chopper movement: less chance of exposure to IED's.

And yes. I confess that I voted for the cancellation. I therefore, sadly and remorsefully accept my share of the responsibility for the death of each and every one of those youngsters who have perished in Afghanistan.

As well, I also voted for the cancellation of the GST.

Shows how wrong I was back then, when I was younger and much more foolish, and what happened when I, and many others like me, bought into the scam know as the "Red Book" boondoggle put together by Chretien and Martin & assoc.

Ain't gonna get sucked in again though.

t i c k - t o c k . . . .

Hopefully, better equipment, better armour, and the Canadian loss of life over the Conservative-extended mandate will be much lower than the death rate to date.

One lives in prayer and Hope.


tj

Crabgrass said...

The opera singer question was my reaction to your melodramatic writing style. Sorry if it was a little obtuse.