Thursday, September 17, 2009

Rex Murphy: "Why Now?"










Rex's commentary may have been rendered moot now that the Harper government may be relying its own "coalition with separatists" (/disingenuous CPC exploitation of ignorance of Responsible Governance) to survive.


18 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

If this is a "coalition with separatists", then it's also a coalition with socialists.

Too bad you could stop slathering over what colour socks Duane Lingenfelter wore today to take note of that.

Audrey II said...

I actually wanted to wait until I had an opportunity to confirm the NDP's voting intent instead of going off half-cocked, as that sort of think tends to generate egg-on-face situations (like insisting that octagons are triangles, that Canada won't be in deficit, that intelligent design is science, that the CO2 level in the atmosphere can reach toxic-to-humans levels before it would affect the climate, etc...).

Your addendum is appreciated, however, and I happily defer to your expertise on repeating disingenuous CPC rhetoric.

Patrick Ross said...

So you waited to confirm the NDP's voting intentions -- which have been fairly clearly stated -- but didn't wait to confirm the Bloc's?

I'd almost salute your thoroughness. Almost.

And I see that you've picked up Sparkles' habit of living in the past "glories" of other people.

Charming. I mean, that's not pitiful at all.

Audrey II said...

"So you waited to confirm the NDP's voting intention's -- which have been fairly clearly stated -- but didn't wait to confirm the Bloc's?"

Yes, Patrick. That is exactly what I did. Your reading comprehension skills and powers of deduction continue to amaze.

"I'd almost salute your thoroughness."

I'd rather you didn't. Not unlike the "George Bush head nod of intelligence" or the "Dick Cheney handshake of moral integrity", the "Patrick Ross salute of thoroughness" isn't really the honor the deliverer might desperately want it to be.

"And I see that you've picked up Sparkles' habit of living in the past "glories" of other people."

I'm not sure that I'd categorize that kind of embarrassing posting history as "glories", but hey... whatever works for you in place of self-awareness and assists in coping with being a veritable laughing stock.

On a related thoroughness note, who on earth is "Duane Lingenfelter"?

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm.

See, Audrey, here's the thing.

It kind of defeats the point of "quoting past embarrassments" if the person you're trying to embaraass isn't the slightest bit embarassed.

Considering that neither yourself nor Sparkles are ever entirely honest about those alleged embarassments, there's no reason at all for me to be embarassed.

As for whoever Duane Lingenfelter is, I'm pretty sure you can tell us what colour socks he's wearing today.

After all, you sure seemed to think people should give a shit about him opening a campaign office. Oddly enough, no one does.

Audrey II said...

I'm not trying to embarrass anyone. Embarrassment requires a degree of both humility and self-awareness, neither of which I can say I think exists in this case. I made it quite clear why I cited the examples that I did: to illustrate the consequences of going off half-cocked.

I don't know a "Duane Lingenfelter", much less anything about his socks. Best of luck on swinging at that bit of air.

Patrick Ross said...

"Embarrassment requires a degree of both humility and self-awareness, neither of which I can say I think exists in this case."

Projecting, slightly?

Audrey, the NDP had made it perfectly clear what their voting intentions were. Admit it. You omitted the NDP from this particular "coalition" (which it isn't, at least not in the formal sense) because you have an ideological bone to pick with the Conservatives and couldn't stand to admit that your party is propping that government up.

It doesn't surprise anyone. Trust me.

Audrey II said...

Ah, Pat, you've got me. I was very much trying to cover up the NDP's position on confidence just to stick it to the conservatives and to help "my party" save face. I was hoping no one would notice, but once again, you're too sharp!

If deductive reasoning skills like that are the Conservative movement's future, things certainly look bright!

Patrick Ross said...

"Cover up" are your words. If I had to further elaborate on mine, I'd have to say "willfully ignored".

Which you clearly did. Frankly, I've rarely encountered anyone who is so utterly transparent in their partisan hackery.

Any further news on Mr Lingenfelter's socks?

Audrey II said...

"willfully ignored"

Of course, Pat! When others fail to post something that they haven't yet confirmed, they most definitely must be "willfully ignoring" it. If only we'd all insist that octagons are triangles, intelligent design is science, CO2 levels can become toxic to humans before affecting climate, etc... then those who do have a habit of going off half-cocked and being left with egg on their face would look a bit less ridiculous by comparison!

Your continued illustration of my point regarding deductive reasoning skills, self-awareness, and the future of conservatism is greatly appreciated. Keep up the wonderful work. After all, a well that poisons itself without even realizing it is doing so is the gift that will keep on giving. And please... keep the posting "advice" coming. Comedy gold like that is hard to come by.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Audrey? Really?

Everyone else knew how the NDP was going to vote.

Everyone else knew on Tuesday. Tuesday.

And here we found you on Thursday willfully omitting the NDP's voting intentions because it doesn't look so purty alongside that ideological bone you have to pick.

That was funny.

But what's even funnier is where we find you here today -- on Sunday: trying so desperately to avoid having to admit what you did, and taking a page out of Sparkles' book and envoking all the past hollow "triumphs" of other people, and even being dishonest about that.

For example, I never suggested that CO2 levels could become "toxic" to humans before affecting climate change. What I did suggest is that air quality alone justifies reduction of CO2 emissions.

For another example, I've never endorsed intelligent design as quality science -- I've merely noted that researchers working within the ID paradigm use the scientific method, but use it very poorly.

Just like every media outlet that reported on the Montebello summit initially reported that the marks on the underside of the boots in questions were triangles -- an easy mistake to make based on the poor visual quality of the video in question.

Just like the NDP's well-publicized voting intentions, Audrey, you just seem to be incapable of being honest about these things.

It isn't surprising. When all you are is a Robert Peter John Day wannabe, the first thing to fly out the window is honesty.

Audrey II said...

"Really, Audrey? Really?".

Really.

You're certainly welcome to "stay the course" on going off half-cocked, but given how well that's worked out for you, you'll have to please excuse those of us who might not be inclined to follow your expert blogging advice.

I do like the resurrection of the "you're dishonest" routine, if only for the lack of self-awareness it displays.

Bonus points for yet again dragging that ongoing blogging vendetta with someone else into another unrelated thread. Who knows... maybe you'll be lucky enough for someone out there not to recognize the desperate reaching for distraction it reveals.

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, it's hilarious that you would say something like that, because you just know it's disingenuous.

Once again, Audrey, everyone else knew how the NDP was going to vote on Tuesday. Everyone knew this.

They said they'd support the EI bill -- then they went ahead and did it.

Everyone knew this was going to happen. We all knew on Tuesday.

You didn't know? I find that hard to believe from someone who reports on all kinds of inconsequential NDP tidbits that no one else cares about.

Nope. You knew. You just chose to pretend you didn't so you could disingenuously complain about a "Conservative coalition with separatists".

You're so utterly transparent that it's hilarious.

Audrey II said...

"See, Audrey, it's hilarious that you would say something like that, because you just know it's disingenuous."

I assure you, my reluctance to follow in your half-cocked blogging footsteps is sincere.

You knew on a particular date whether octagons or triangles were on those boots.

You knew on a particular date whether Canada would face a deficit or not.

You knew on a particular date exactly what level of CO2 could exist in the atmosphere before climate was affected.

You knew on a particular date that intelligent design is science.

And given the record of things you've believed and asserted, I don't think what-Patrick-Ross-believes carries nearly the compelling weight you seem to want it to.

I find it particularly interesting that my sarcastic reference to the "coalition with separatists" reference seems to have been lost on you. Not everyone subscribes to Harper's coalition rhetoric the way you do. I made it quite clear in my original post (as I have in numerous others) that I find that sort of thing disingenuous, yet here you are premising an absurd accusation on my agreement with it.

Since the obvious has been lost on you, I'm not (nor was I ever) "complaining about a Conservative coalition with separatists". Unlike you (and the rest of Harper's intended audience of political ignorants), I understand the construct of confidence and how it applies to the parliamentary system of responsible governance that exists in Canada.

I authored the above post was to draw attention to the disingenuity of Harper's confidence rhetoric, not (as you've haplessly whined about) to complain about a "coalition with separatists". I made that quite clear in the topic post itself (not the sarcastic faux-html tag that I deliberately included). You may not be willing or able to acknowledge this, but I'm quite confident that most who've read my above post will.

Comments like the above raise the question of whether you ever tire of making yourself look foolish, or just not realize that you're doing it.

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

Yes, Audrey, some of that is true.

I (like many people) thought that the octagons in question looked like triangles when pictured in a low-resolution photograph.

I (like many people) didn't think there was going to be a budget deficit.

There is, of course, a big difference between saying these things before they were proven wrong (and I admit they were) and overlooking the NDP's voting intentions when they're already publicly known (which you won't admit).

I (like many people) know that there are reasons other than just climate change to reduce carbon emissions -- not just CO2, but also emissions such as carbon sulphide -- and that air quality is a good one.

I (like many people) know that intelligent design is science (extremely poor science -- and somehow this is the portion of my view on the matter that you continue to omit).

It's pretty obvious that you really don't understand the issue of confidence and how it applies to the Parliament and government of Canada. You continue to subscribe to the hollow principle that Parliament and the Governor General can decide Canada's government however the hell they feel like and the citizens of Canada can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.

No one has questioned that the Canadian government must maintain the confidence of Parliament. But it seems like the vast majority of Canadians also believe that Parliament must maintain the confidence of the citizenry.

When a coalition deal with separatists -- and cry as you like, you'll never change the fact that the Bloc very much was party to the coalition agreement, by virtue of Gilles Duceppe's signature on the agreement -- is so decisively rejected by Canadians as this was, it becomes immeidately clear that Parliament is not acting in a manner conducive to maintaining the confidence of the citizenry.

Not only is there nothing responsible about a coalition government that handcuffs its ability to act on its responsibilities to maintain national unity -- vis a vis a formal, and secretive, deal with separatists -- but there is nothing responsible about a government established so contemptuously of the expectations of how Canadians choose their government.

Nobody said you have to like it, Audrey. But when you try to pretend that you have the right to tell Canadians that their expectations regarding how their government is chosen are meaningless, you make yourself look foolish.

Kind of like when you omit the publicly-expressed and well-known voting intentions of a political party in the name of some ideological axe you have to grind.

But by all means, Audrey, grind away.

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, and by the way, Audrey. I think we both remember that you know approximately sweet fuck all about evolution in the first place -- and, once again, you just aren't honest enough to admit it.

Audrey II said...

ROTFL's won't do much to change the well-earned record you've established of half-cocked, poorly premised claims that have ended up as egg on your face.

I'm quite comfortable with the various posts that I've made speaking to the relationship between parliamentary confidence and responsible governance and the contrast between them and what you've put forth, certainly enough that I don't need to spend my time (as you've done) constructing and knocking over strawmen or employing rhetoric of assholery. I also think that those educated in science will be more than capable of recognizing the difference between the arguments I've made around the issue of evolution and the Kent Hovind-esque ignorance that you've posted both on this blog and elsewhere.

There is a big difference between throwing out claims without thoroughly confirming them first, insisting that the responsibility lies with others to prove them false and deliberately choosing not to make a claim if unsure of its accuracy. I think you've made it quite clear what side of that matter you stand.

Much thanks, again, for the blogging advice. Your desperate repetition of it only adds to its comedic value. May you someday find a "If only I could blog like Patrick Ross" audience out there. In the mean time, you'll please have to pardon those of us that get a good laugh out of the self-unawareness of it all.

Patrick said...

See, Audrey, you keep saying things like that, but that isn't enough to make them true.

And all its ever earned you is the part-time devotion of mindless sycophants like Sparkles the magical retard.

As for your comfort with your posts about parliamentary confidence and responsible government, no one's going to be surprised to find out that you're comfortable only telling half the story -- which is pretty much what is to be expected from someone who preens that "reality has a left-wing bias" (speaks to the mentality of someone who hasn't figured out that reality is actually unbiased by its very nature -- and the lack of originality of someone who has to rip her schtick off from as many sources as possible, be it Stephen Colbert or Robert Peter John Day).

See Audrey, you'd like to pretend that this is all about not "throwing out claims without thoroughly confirming them first", but it really isn't. This is about ignoring publicly-avaliable information about the voting intentions of the political party you align yourself with so that you can try to score some cheap ideological points.

It's pretty much what anyone expects from you. That and lots of whining about non-existent "straw man arguments" and incoherent rambling about venn diagrams (or some other stupidity).

Oh, and writing sentence- or paragraph-long posts with no meaningful content.

Those well-schooled in evolution won't throw the centrality of adaptation as a mechanism of evolution in the name of demonizing a politician they disagree with, as you so gleefully did. They certainly wouldn't ignore source material from some of the top educational institutions in the world in order to do so.

As for the advice I'd give you about blogging, I'm not about to bother. I think the very idea of blogging about actual ideas and real issues would pretty much make that empty little head of yours explode.

Post a Comment