Tips on Beating Down the Conservative Menace
I think the Harperbots just hit their Ernie Eves 'reptilian kitten eater' moment with their latest stupid ad. The Libs should just use this one in response, it's just as accurate.
Did you see Harper in North Africa today? I'd say he's been eating more then just the succulent lean meat of children if the weight he's put on over the holiday break is any indication. What a load!
I hope this gets to go viral..what fun!!
Can't a "few kids" in war room catch a break?Election posturing vs cannibalism?Have any of your attack ads actually been aired?I remember the kerfuffle at LPOC with the contest that posted assassination ad and comparison to despots as finalists.No money no ads, the CBC and CTV analysis of your You tube spots can't carry the Liberals.
Is CanadianSense a douchebag?Lets ask Michael Ignatieff...
All I hear is he looks back on the night he "opted out" with great relief.
I meant the succulent 'fatty' flesh of children..
Here's another vid:http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2011/01/video-stephen-harper-raises-taxes.html....
CanadianSense is right. Government in this country is best determined by which party has the most money to run attack ads. That's what we should value.
If this is the best the Libs can do, they need to go out and hire professional joke writers.The ad really isn't funny.Maybe if they changed the word "children" to "people veal." Naw, that wouldn't help much.
oh ho ho Richard, you're so droll
MF,Dismiss the lack of individual donors, the concentration in three large cities. The loss of rural, Catholic voters as issues.Suggest "attack ads" that 85% of voters are not paying attention too are responsible for the demise of the Liberal brand?If the Liberals want to become a national party again they should be financially viable have more than 25,000 donors and not require federal donations to keep their door open.
Hey CS check out today's papers...The National Post: "Tasha Kheiriddin: I’ll have what Michael Ignatieff is having - ...the latest Conservative ads don’t just go out of context, they go over the line. Do the Tories really believe they can fool voters into thinking Michael Ignatieff would enthusiastically cheer for an “unnecessary election” or “raise taxes on job creators?” Or are they just trying to take sarcasm to another level?Vancouver Sun: The ads are “totally dishonest…These latest ads show that Conservatives are willing to do whatever it takes, to stoop to the very depths, to damage the prospects of the Liberal leader. There is no fairness and no integrity whatever to these ads.”The Canadian Press: “ADS SPARK BACKLASH… entirely out of context… Carleton University communications professor Josh Greenberg said the latest Tory ads are “insulting to the intelligence.” Political ads are notorious for taking opponents’ words out of context but he said he’s never seen anything quite so blatant.”The Globe and Mail: “Would Tories use an Ignatieff clip out of context? Yes! Yes! Yes!”CS - Thanks for Harper's latest attack ads! You guys just re-created Kim Campbell's 1993 mocking of Chretien's physical disability.Please continue to defend them ...you don't realize what a fucking joke you are.
I like Iggy. I really do. I think he's a smart guy and his policies generally make sense. But he doesn't seem to have shown the leadership abilities to win a general election. My subversive plot is to promote Marc Garneau as a future Lib leader. I think he's a great guy and the Libs have almost always done best when they had a leader from Quebec who can play well to English Canada. Garneau fits that bill.
TofKW,You have identified four of five stories that translates to at least a dozen potential votes in an election that may not occur until 2012?Personal ad hominem attacks against me does not change the regional-financial status of the Liberal party.Fix the party and try some relaxing herbal tea for your outbursts.Cheers.
Aww look. CS, the same loser who likes to suggest I perform oral sex on Ignatieff whenever (and it happens all the time) he is left grasping for something to refute my point, is whining about personal attacks again.Anyway, we all get that he read an article once on the LPC and the Catholic vote. He refers to it over and over and over again. What that has to do with the fact the CPC are basically stamping "desperation" on their foreheads with these ads escapes me.Oh right, it has nothing to do with that. Poor CS is just as desperate to change the channel, that's all.
Well, if this blog is a democracy then I vote to allow him to stay.He is always good for a laugh and any "point" he makes is easily refuted. Besides, banning posters is so "Blogging Tory".
Gayle, I have no problem with Conservative supporters posting on these liblogs, hell I'm 100% for it. Remember I am an old Red Tory, and still support the Ont PC party, even though I'm not a fan of Hudak personally. You need sensible people with an opposing view who challenge your convictions. If it ends up one can not defend his/her point of view, then one should revisit their original opinions.I consider posters like Rob H, Jerome or Tomm as descent types, they always bring up valid points and are good debaters. Regardless of whether you disagree with them or not, they should always be allowed to post on any blog.However these disruptive tools like CS, wilson or ridenrain are another story. As you pointed out, do what these trolls do on any Blogging Tory blog, or their main forum itself. The post won't last long.By the way, contrary to popular belief, and depending on the blog, you can post dissenting views over at the Blogging Tories. Again that depends if you’re writing in as a Liberal version of Rob H …or a Liberal-troll version of CanadianSense.Frankly, I think the Liblogs should start acting more like the Blogging Tories in terms of troll-control.
My policy with CS is when he gets realuppity I delete a couple of his comments and make him go away for awhile. Today he doesn't seem too bad.
Post a Comment