Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Brad Wall can't decide what year he received his "phone call".

Brad Wall's claim:

"He phoned me at my home before the '04 election to give me advice on how to beat the former leader of the NDP"

Saskatchewan had general elections in '03 and '07. Sorry, Mr. Wall. The utter lack of evidence thus far, your shifting dates, the sheer political opportunism of the time and venue in which the accusation was made... not doing a very good job of passing the smell test (the opinion of John Gormley's oh-so-critical callers, notwithstanding).


30 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

"The last time we talked for any length of time is when he phoned me at my home before the '04 election to give me advice on how to beat the former leader of the NDP," said a laughing Wall, who later clarified to reporters that he meant the 2003 provincial election, which the Sask. Party unexpectedly lost when Wall was Crown corporations critic.

And then, of course, there's the kicker:

Lingenfelter maintains while outside of politics this past eight year he kept in active touch with may people of all political stripes. Minister Bill Boyd was quick to back up the story saying Lingenfelter had often shared similar advice with him. The two are are said to be friends.

Seeing as how you evidently learned of this stort at the Nexus, you knew both of these things.

Same old Audrey: if it doesn't fit your argument: omit, omit, omit. Or ignore, ignore, ignore.

However you prefer.

John said...

So he made phone calls to people of all political stripes? Seems like something somebody who is sane and rational might do. If Wall says a phone call took place why not prove it?

Patrick Ross said...

Hey, John, can I see your phone records from 2003?

How about that?

Audrey II said...

Omigosh! Lingenfelter has a friend? One that isn't a member of the NDP??! And he talks to him?! That certainly is a "kicker"! I guess it's settled, then. Link must have given Brad Wall a call on how to win an election that never took place! Can't argue with the numbers!

If only I had followed the "stort" more carefully, I might have saved myself the embarrassment of not realizing the kind of proof "the kicker" is. Thanks again, Diamond Kid!

(For those who lack the ability to identify it, the above was sarcasm)

Patrick Ross said...

Omit, omit, omit.

Audrey II said...

On the contrary, the more attention your non-sequiturs and defense of Wall's efforts at distraction receives, the better.

John said...

Patrick, where is the proof? Why is the Premier of Saskatchewan making such a lie?

Patrick Ross said...

Audrey, I have no doubt that you think the less accurately you portray this particular situation, the better. For you, that is.

And it's evident that John doesn't really speak the language, so I'll just let him duck out quietly now.

John said...

Patrick, if the Premier has no evidence for his two lies why would we believe him? If he came saying Lingenfelter was an alien and had Boyd to back that up would you believe them? Either provide the evidence or admit the Premier is a liar and has tarnished the office he currently is in.

Patrick Ross said...

Sigh.

John, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a lie.

And I would be interested to know precisely what Wall's second "lie" allegedly is.

Besides, John, weren't you just given permission to excuse yourself on account of your apparent inability to speak the englie?

Audrey II said...

Really, John? Really? Since you're apparently so intellectually lazy that you need it explained to you, Lingenfelter giving Boyd advice proves Wall's claim. It's the kicker.

You're here giving Patrick advice (who I'm assuming does not share your political leanings). It's evident that you too phoned Brad Wall, and your failure to admit it only shows how dishonest you are.

"Diamond Kid" gives advice here all the time. He also evidently phoned Brad Wall.

For the most part, the blogosphere as a whole called Brad Wall and gave him advice. The numbers and the kicker say it all. I have a google blog search to prove it and I'm willing to repost its results until people stop voicing criticisms of it. ;)

Patrick Ross said...

No, Audrey, once again, you're erecting strawmen.

Nobody here has pretended Lingenfelter giving advice to Boyd (which apparently, you won't attempt to refute -- splendid) gives a tremendous amount of credence to Wall's claim.

We now know that Lingenfelter has been in the business of giving advice to his political opponents. It's now much harder to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That is, unless you're a total sycophant who blogs about every inconsequential detail regarding Lingenfelter.

Then you'd believe him if he tells you the sun rises in the west.

Audrey II said...

"We now know that Lingenfelter has been in the business of giving advice to his political opponents."

As is John. As are you. As is, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole. That you find this significant or that it ought to have any impact whatsoever on the usual requisite for positive evidence says a lot. "Sycophant", indeed.

Brad Wall's merely doing what he's gained a reputation for doing: playing politics. He sees Lingenfelter as a credible threat and instead of actually responding to questions about his government's fiscal responsibility, he's tossed out a shiny object, hoping that some out there will be dumb enough to be distracted by a claim that he's shown no intention of providing any evidence for whatsoever.

I'd ask you to guess who just illustrated that they're willing to be one of Wall's useful idiots, but answering that would require a degree of self-awareness that's already been well shown to be out of reach.

...Yet another google gem for potential HR staff to discover. Cheers, Diamond Kid.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

See, Audrey, I've heard this "HR staff" nonsense before, and yet somehow even the most deliberate efforts by your compatriots to attempt to destroy my career (and, yes, some of your compatriots have very much bragged to me about their efforts to "destroy my career") they have yet to prevent me from being spectacularly well-employed.

See, Audrey, you're the one who's embarrassing yourself (as usual). In this case, you're indulging yourself in the privilege to set up yet another strawman argument to knock over (and it's hilarious how often you do this, despite the fact that you always complain about it).

The only one talking about "positive arguments" is you.

What I'm talking about is the credibility Wall's claim enjoys in the wake of the revelation that Lingenfelter has done the same in the past.

Now, let's address the false equivalence you've set up here. Because there's a huge difference between writing something that could be considered political advice on a blog and leaving it there to be discovered or not discovered, read or unread, and directly giving political advice to an individual, whether that's over the phone or in person.

But I don't expect an admission of that difference from someone who's bound and determined to be one of Lingenfelter's "useful idiots" (as you yourself put it), slathering over every minute detail of the guy, then foaming in predictable outrage every time a detail emerges that quite evidently distresses them.

Audrey II said...

You're right that you're not talking about "positive arguments". That's the point. You're taking a benign condition that exists for almost everyone and attempting to turn it into something that allows you and Wall to shirk the burden of proof.

I've little doubt that you think an evidence-free, politically opportunistic claim that Wall has shown no intention of providing proof for and which he raised in an effort to distract from questions about his own government's competence is "credible". You employ that kind of rhetoric on a regular basis in your contributions both here and elsewhere.

You're correct that there are distinctions that are being ignored. That's what I'm poking fun at. The ignorance of the difference between talking politics with ones friends or acquaintances and phoning up an opposition critic of whom you have no history of a relationship with to give advice on how to bring down your own party leadership is differs little from the sarcastic scenario that I'm raising where your own blog contributions lend credibility to the notion that you (like John and for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole) phoned Brad Wall and gave him advice on toppling the Calvert government. Both involve ignoring obvious distinctions and both are a transparent attempt to circumvent the usual requirements of claims to be accompanied by some sort of positive evidence. Wall's desperation for distraction doens't "distress" me in the slightest. In fact, not unlike your own-brand of conservative intellectualism, I think the more attention it gets, the better. Self-inflicted wounds are always useful and fun.

Thanks for continuing to show that you're part of Wall's intended audience of useful idiocy. Birds of an assholish-rhetoric feather do seem to flock together.

Patrick Ross said...

False equivalence, Audrey.

(God, I wish Sparkles were still alive to see this.)

Audrey II said...

Really, Pat? Really? Are you sure you want to go down the intellectually lazy route and omit things you don't want to address?

98 out of 100 blogsearch results show people communicating directly with people that they disagree politically with, often giving advice. Face it, Pat. The blogosphere, for the most part, disagrees with you, and the number of people who can credibly be said to have phoned Brad Wall and advised him on defeating Calvert is much larger than you're willing to admit. You're not fooling anyone about your own call to Brad Wall. Really.

Omit, omit, omit. You're so dishonest.

I win.

*Note: Familiarity with "Thunderbolt Ross's" contributions here are needed to fully appreciate the above sarcasm.

Patrick Ross said...

And, of course, Audrey, commentary that could be interpreted as advice, then left to be read or unread is precisely the same as a direct phone call to the individual in question.

Particularly as the individual will likely have never read the blog posts in question.

...Oh, wait. No. That was not only sarcasm, but well-founded sarcasm.

False equivalence, Audrey. A real, honest to God false equivalence. And it just shows how desperate you've become.

Audrey II said...

Oh. My. Lord.

So what you're saying is, people author blog posts and responses, directly addressing others, with the expectation that they won't be read by anyone.

Really, Pat? Really? Are you really that dense?

98 out of the first 100 blog search results prove you're wrong. No one expects you to do the intellectually honest thing and own up to your phonecall to Brad Wall, just like you never condemned Suzanne Fortin and her defense of the Catholic Church's efforts to force a 9 year old rape victim to put her life in jeopardy by carrying twins to term.

98 out of 100.

I win.

/rhetoricofassholery

Patrick Ross said...

Heh. Audrey, you're getting so emotional.

The sad thing about it, Audrey, is that if you think these recent defeats were hard on you, you literally have no clue about what's coming up.

Audrey II said...

Oh. My. Good. Lord.

The next 100 results from that blog search are even better. 99 out of 100.

All that's left is for Pat to deny his defeat and to omit, omit, omit. You didn't even deny the sycophantic-groupthink-support of the Suzie's defense of the Catholic church's abusive policies.

297 out of 200. I (AKA Diamond Kid/ AKA Kid Cash AKA The Regicide Kid AKA Thunderbolt Ross AKA an asshole) win.

/rhetoricofassholery

Actually, I've got a pretty good idea of what's coming up: Some logically invalid bit of rhetoric that you're going to trumpet as a "defeat", probably involving the trouncing of a strawman and a goodly lot of chest thumping. You've practically become infamous for doing so. Anyone want to place bets on it continuing?

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

So Audrey thinks she has "297 out of 200" false equivalences and it proves nothing.

God, I wish Sparky were still alive to see this.

Audrey II said...

Really? Really really? Really really really really really?

ROTFL!

You're so dishonest.

498 out of 300.

Still omitting your phonecall to Brad Wall.

Still omitting your sycophantic groupthink support of Suzanne Fortin.

Still omitting that for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole disagrees with you.

Still omitting your defeat.

I win.

/rhetoricofassholery

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey. It seems that your number of blog posts providing advice to another individual (once again, not the same as a direct phone call) exceeds the size of your sample.

So either you've blown a gasket, or you just really suck at math.

Audrey II said...

LOL!

ROTFL!

LOLROTFLMFAO!!!

Still omitting your phonecall to Brad Wall.

Still omitting your sycophantic groupthink support of SUZANNE's posts.

Still omitting that for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole proves you wrong.

Still omitting your defeat.

Really, Pattles. Really. Just stay down. You're embarrassing yourself.

Face it. You've lost again. You'd do wonders for your credibility if you'd just admit it.

Oh, the next 100 results are even better. 652 out of 400.

I win.

/rhetoricofassholery

I do hope that Sparky shows up, as that poster seems familiar enough with "the rhetoric of assholery" to not only catch, but appreciate what I've sarcastically posted above. Given "Diamond Kid's" AKA "Kid Cash's" AKA "The Regicide Kid's" proclivity for spreading that kind of adolescent nonsense all over the blogosphere, I'm guessing Sparky's not the only one who might recognize it.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

Audrey, if you think this particular defeat you just suffered was bad, just wait 'till tomorrow.

No, literally. Tomorrow.

Audrey II said...

LOLLOLLOL!!! ROTFLLOLLOL!!!

Really, Pat. 652 out of 400. No, literally. 652 out of 400!

Just stay down Pattles. Really. Really really. Just do the honest thing and admit that you, like the blogosphere as a whole, called Brad Wall about bringing down the Calvert government.

Today.

No, literally. Today.

652. I win.

/rhetoricofassholery.

You might not get the joke, Pat (lack-of-self-awareness FTW!!!), but I think there are enough out there familiar enough with Thunderbolt Ross' "rhetoric-of-assholery" and adolescent buffoonery who will. I'm quite happy to go on for 50+ more replies to further illustrate, if that will help.

Patrick Ross said...

No, Audrey. The hilarious thing about this is that it's just yet another act of dishonesty, heaped upon acts of dishonesty that are tolerated by your cohorts out of base ideological solidarity.

And it's quite obviously the last desperate straw of someone who knows she can't win.

Audrey II said...

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH!!

Dishonesty? That's rich coming from someone who can't even admit that he called Brad Wall or supported SUZANNE Fortin's defense of Catholic abuse of rape victims.

ROTFL!

So what you're saying is that you're so dishonest that you'll omit that 652 out of 400 blog search results prove you wrong and that, for the most part, the blogosphere as a whole also called Brad Wall to give him advice on defeating Calvert.

LOL! Really Really Pattles? Really. Really? Really really really?

652 to 0.

I win, and my willingness to repeat the same nonsensical strawmen and non-sequiturs over and over again for 50+ replies proves your defeat.

Thunderbolt Ross AKA Kid Cash AKA Diamond Kid AKA Regicide Kid strikes again!

Here's an elementary school playground threat about what's gonna happen tomorrow. You'd better watch out! (Dun, dun, DUUUUUUUUN!!!!!!)

LOL really. You're so dishonest

/rhetoricofassholery

Patrick Ross said...

Heh.

Audrey, you're getting so emotional! Just over lil' ol' me?

I thought it was Jonathon Strong you had the crush on. After all, he's the one you tried to arrange a creepy bondage date with.

Post a Comment