Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Brad Wall can't defend own fiscal record,...

... and instead chooses to toss out a red meat accusation that he has no intention of actually proving, hoping that it will serve to be distracting enough.

Sorry, Mr. Wall. While the press loves blood (the question Wall ran away from received little to no media coverage), I think Sask. voters are more intelligent than that, and are capable of recognizing the pathetic attempt at distraction for what it is. That Wall doesn't says much about his feelings towards the people he's supposed to be representing.

Maybe Mr. Wall should try Alberta as an audience. At least one person there finds that kind of grade-school rhetoric compelling.


37 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

ROTFL

So, how many days did this take you to catch on to this.

So I'm guessing you have little comment on reports that advising his adversaries isn't that out of the ordinary for Lingenfelter.

Brian said...

To suggest that Lingenfelter would do anything to help Brad Wall is absurd beyond description. Wall has Saskatchewan on the slippery slope to a Grant Devine-style debt and the people of the province know it. His smiling face and pom-pom waving may be entertaining, but more and more people in Saskatchewan are beginning to ask the question, is the smile and cheerleading worth the pain that will come when the next government has to again clean up a huge Tory mess?

Audrey II said...

I heard about the accusation the following day, and wanted to wait to see if there was anything more to it than Wall's opportunistic say-so.

I can't really comment on reports that I haven't read, but even if true, that really isn't at all relevant to the topic that I've raised.

I'm not surprised that you're here defending Wall's rather transparent use of distraction (ironically, by attempting to raise something that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not Wall was arguing-through-distraction). As that sort of thing seems to be all that you can muster in many of your own blogospheric contributions, the self-admitted-asshole "Diamond Kid" and Mr. Wall may have found something in common.

Sparky said...

Ask Patrick what Lingenfelter's first name is. Maybe he'll get it right this time.
Absurd beyond description? That pretty much sums up the wonder that is Patrick.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

Yeah, Audrey. If that were true -- and as you're a consumate liar, I don't believe you for an insstant -- I think I know exactly where you would've seen that, too.

Better luck next time, Audrey!

Audrey II said...

It's certainly true, "Diamond Kid", that you often call me a liar as a substitute for actually addressing the topics being discussed (Rhetoric of Assholery illustration, FTW!!!),but hollow non-sequiturs aren't remotely the same thing as truth no matter how often you repeat them, and your continued efforts to conflate the two says more than I think you'd like it to. I'm not the first person that you've resorted to calling a liar without supporting it, nor will I likely be the last. I think you've actually done a good job of making the accusation a euphemism for "made Thunderbolt Ross look foolish".

Wall's Question Period antics were covered by the local television and print news the following day, and crowed about on talk radio then as well. I happened to catch all three.

As much as I always appreciate your continued advice to "go-off-half-cocked-Ross", and as appealing as blogosphere notoriety for "triangles/no deficit/CO2 levels can become toxic before they affect the climate" egg-on-face right be, you'll have to forgive me if I continue to wait for relevant information/confirmation before shooting my mouth off on the internet.

Now that you've burned through the usual "you didn't condemn" distraction and the "you're dishonest" song-and-dance, isn't there a strawman somewhere that yet needs erecting and trouncing? Don't forget, commentary on Wall's efforts at distraction (you know, the actual topic at hand)is also welcome at any time.

Patrick Ross said...

Audrey, you so rarely raise any point at all. Even when you do, you're rarely honest about your arguments after the fact.

So really, what is there to do other than call you a liar?

The answer: there's simply nothing.

Audrey II said...

Brian,

I think it was almost 89% of John Gormley's callers who said they believe it, though.

As has been repeatedly shown by the beliefs held by FOX "News"'s choir, the right-wing audience often don't need no stinking evidence.

But hey... DWAIN LINGENFELTER HAS FRIENDS OUTSIDE OF HIS PARTY!!! ...AND HE EVEN TALKS TO THEM!!! PROOF, I TELLS YA, THAT BRAD WALL WASN'T EMPLOYING RHETORIC AS A DISTRACTION!!!

Patrick Ross said...

Witness Audrey's self-indulgence in straw man arguments.

After all, I never commented -- one way or the other -- on whether or not Brad Wall was using a distraction.

And hilariously enough, Audrey's omitting an important part of the issue -- the issue isn't that Dwain Lingenfelter has friends outside of the NDP and talks to them, it's that he's given them political advice, particularly advice on how to defeat his own party.

But what was I it I said about Audrey and information that doesn't fit her worldview?

Oh, right: omit, omit, omit.

Audrey II said...

It wasn't a strawman, Pat. It was a sarcastic reference to your participation in this thread completely failing to address the topic at hand.

Intended or not, I very much appreciate your subsequent admission of this. You're still making good use of the rope that you're provided with.

Patrick Ross said...

No, Audrey. That was a strawman argument, you indulged yourself in it, and you hung yourself from that rope you dangled.

Rhetorical suicide is a neat trick. I wouldn't use it myself, but you employ it, uh...

...

...Masterfully?

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, and by the way, Audrey. I don't want you to think I'm not treating your little videos with the seriousness they deserve.

John said...

Patrick how would you know what advice is being given out? This is the same Brad Wall who can't seem to remember what exactly he was doing during the 1980's but has some idea he took a phone call either in 2003 or 2004? Yeah, sounds really credible....

Patrick Ross said...

Well, John, we have two MLAs recounting examples of Lingenfelter giving them such advice. And we have Lingenfelter denying it.

He's not exactly winning that numbers game right now.

Audrey II said...

Who do you think you're fooling here, Thunderbolt? Anyone can scroll up and see for themselves that I've been pointing out from the start that you haven't been addressing the topic at hand. Do you honestly think that anyone is going to believe that I suddenly decided that you were?

You continue to treat the readers of your commentary as though they are incompetent idiots, incapable of following discussion threads, unable to verify what has been said in earlier replies, and easily distracted from your own admission that you haven't been addressing the topic at hand.

Audrey II said...

I happen to really like your videos, Pat, particularly the way you can't let the arguments that were made stand in their original form and instead choose to do battle with straw-stuffed versions of them.

Your illustrations of the "So what you're saying is..." routine that you've worked hard to make your name synonymous with is a gift of self-unawareness that just keeps on giving. It's as though the self-admitted asshole "Cash Kid" really is incapable of anything other than the rhetoric of assholery.

Patrick Ross said...

Really, Audrey? Really?

My videos are accurate portrayals of the conversations that have taken place.

Unlike yours, which stand on pure fiction.

See, Audrey, you're evidently so frustrated that you're reduced to insisting I'm capable of nothing but the dishonest portrayals of these conversations you're presenting.

But I've proven myself capable of doing something that you, to date, have yet to prove yourself capable of:

Formulating an original argument.

You're nothing more than a would-be curmudgeon, snickering at the contributions of other people while contributing nothing yourself. An intellectual free rider. Lazy to the very core.

As much as I enjoy mocking your little videos I don't take them seriously. Nor do I take you seriously. It's just fun to come in here, dismantle you on a regular basis, then watch you and the other sycophants here try to pretend it isn't happening.

Sparky said...

Oh come now Patrick, regale us with your tales of your superior and eloquent debating style! Entertain us with your stories of how you smited your evil foes!
I'm awash with gleeful feelings seeing you muster all the forces at your disposal to thwart your enemies and champion truth, justice, and the Rossian way!
I'm ever so impressed with your 'dismantling'--it truly is a wonder to behold.
And your accurate portrayals!! My god, the work of sheer genius!
How can you be so fantastically you and still have the time to throw scraps of wonderment in our general direction!
I am in awe.

Patrick Ross said...

Wow, Sparks. I'm surprised you didn't just break down in tears again because another blogger deletes your comments.

Hmmmm. Deleting comments, deleting comments...

...

Who else do we know who likes to do that?

Sparky said...

Wanna stay on point, Patrick? Where's your tales of slaying Audrey's points? Where's this "intellectual heftiness" that you supposedly have? Acumen?
"that's much easier than actually debating any topic"
This is what you got? Seriously?
C'mon, don't disappoint! Slay your foes with your literary prowress!!
I await with eager anticipation!

Sparky said...

the quotation was suppose to be "Wow, Sparks. I'm surprised you didn't just break down in tears again because another blogger deletes your comments"
Oops, my bad.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

You mean like you stayed on topic in the "One Nation Under God" thread, Sparkles?

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have just forgot that thread was about Iceman from the very beginning.

Audrey II said...

RESPONSE TEMPLATE

Really, (insert name)? Really?

So what you're saying is (insert strawman here).

And how about (insert something irrelevant to the topic being discussed) and your failure to mention that?

You're so dishonest (Don't bother with links, specifics, or evidence. The mere accusation is enough of a distraction).

(insert chest-thumping variations of "I win")

Cut and paste from the above (mixing 'em up shows intellectualism!) until others stop responding.


The invitation to address the relationship between Wall's accusation and the question he was asked in Question Period is still on the table, "Diamond Kid". If your content with simply providing more illustrations of "the rhetoric of assholery", then I'm quite happy to keep pointing out the logical problems with it.

Patrick Ross said...

Oh, you mean this Rhetoric of Assholery, Audrey?

Yeah, trust me. That's being treated with all the seriousness it deserves.

Sparky said...

See people, Patrick has a tough time dealing with all the various fallacies he's got running in all the different threads at any given time and often gets them confused.
I'll help you Patrick--in this particular comment thread, we're demonstrating your disingenuous hackery by mocking you.
Trust me, you're being treated with all the seriousness you deserve.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

Sparky said...

I love bringing happiness to Patrick's life by pointing out his hackery.
Good on you, Patrick--laughing at your hackery is the first step to recovery.

Patrick Ross said...

No, Sparky, you still don't get it.

I'm treating you -- and the idea that you would accuse anyone of "hackery" -- with the seriousness you deserve.

Sparky said...

Ooooh! What a comeback!
Your 'intellectual heftiness' must've been taxed for that one!
Patrick the lying hack accusing others of same--my god that's fantastic!
I'm in awe, Patrick. Truly I am.

Patrick Ross said...

Sparky accusing anyone of lying is also particularly amusing.

Talk about that whole "lack of self-awareness" thing.

Sparky said...

As aptly demonstrated thoroughly in the past in many threads at many differnt blogs, there's links, rational and logical points, and proofs that Patrick lied, obfuscated, moved goalposts, and, in a general sense, was and is a disingenuous hack. Hey, one just has to look through current (and somewhwat current) threads here to see this in full living colour ('nothing but' and 'MSNBC is exactly the same as FOX' immediately come to mind, but you can go back and look up 'the whole of teh blogosphere' and others to see these points demonstrated to the satisfaction of everyone but Patrick).
Patrick, on the other hand, has consistently brandied the same terminology--lying, hackery, disingenous--many times over but never showed his work, or when he did, it was shown to be hackery/moving goal posts/misrepresenting what was actually said/outright lying--again, to the satisfaction of everyone involved but Patrick.
Patrick even states openly that some of those points were victories--inferring that those that pointed out his hackery were right and he was wrong. Of course, he wiggles by stating that they were 'hollow victories' 'cause, well, he was wrong 'n all, but those points really weren't much to begin with so why is everyone making a fuss that Patrick was wrong--get over it already!!!
Again, the question--when has Patrick actually been right?
I'll even start--when Patrick stated that 'others' had 'victories' regarding their proofs of his blatant wrongness, he's right. 'Others' pointed out Patrick was wrong and Patrick accepts that.
Now can anyone else show any more 'rightness' regarding Patrick?
Patrick may try, but it's highly doubtful that he'll be truthfull 'cause, well, I've only seen it once outside his little nexus (as noted above).
Lack of self awareness, indeed.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL! More lies and general stupidity from Sparky.

No one's surprised. Some people are just more willing to tolerate it than others.

John said...

Patrick, having Boyd state that Wall told him so is not evidence! Why is the Premier spreading lies? He said Lingenfelter also had a conservative sign on his lawn. The Premier made two allegations and nobody seems to be able to prove it. Maybe he should spend more time fixing the deficit he created.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. I believe in this situation, if I were Audrey, I would be screaming:

READING COMPREHENSION, FTW!

Boyd's contribution to this matter is not that Wall told him about the call, but rather that his friend Dwain Lingenfelter has given him similar advice.

John said...

Except Wall has no evidence his phone calls took place and what advice Lingenfelter gave Boyd is not that shocking. Harper calls Chretein all the time but some like Patrick live in the stoneages where those with different political views should not interact.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL!

John, you make some hilarious assumptions.

Next time do some homework before you open your mouth.

Ed said...

Dwain Lingenfelter is accomplished in the business world, as a farmer, and as a statesman. That he would offer advice to a right-winger who has failed at the only two private ventures he has attempted is absurd beyond belief.

Wall and company finally have an opposition leader who will take them to task and at the same time expose them for the bunch of inept pretenders they are. No wonder Devine's Mini-Me is desperately trying to change the channel any way he can.

Nowhere to run, no place to hide, Mr. Wall.

Post a Comment