[ShepherdsDog]

Hmmm....maybe we need to call....

[Bruce_the_vii]

A NDP/Liberal majority coalition is only 17 seats away. If the next NDP leader doesn't promise too much, to raise taxes on the middle, it could happen.

[Mustang1]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

IS Ritalin safe for old people?

I dunno, yesterday he posted, "You do not give one reason to get up in the morning expecting stimulation."

[ShepherdsDog]

sounds more like a viagra moment.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Mustang1 wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

IS Ritalin safe for old people?

I dunno, yesterday he posted, "You do not give one reason to get up in the morning expecting stimulation."

Well, I guess you can take comfort in the fact that he doesn't find you sexually appealing

[Mustang1]

eureka wrote:

They are facts and they are reflections of the convictions of political scientists.

Ah...this isn't good, as it would seem yet another Political Scientist has been found with a scathing assessment of Rae and his NDP leadership during his tenure as Premier. This tends to further push your empty suppositions back to the trashcan.

According to John Wilson (Ontario Political Culture at the End of the Century in Noel ed.), not only did the NDP not govern "competently and cautiously" (in contrast to your, "rational and intelligent" appraisal) but it proved in couldn't govern. Moreover, by the end of his term, "Bob Rae and the NDP had clearly shown their inability to manage the province properly..."

Wow, so far, real political scientists (MacDermid and Wilson) seem to find a lot of criticisms with the Rae regime and your unsubstantiated beliefs regarding it

[Bruce_the_vii]

Fantastic picture there ShepardsDog. Personally I could do with less rancor. Lots of bad information in posts here, but I just shrug.

[eureka]

Actually, you instigated it. I "stumbled" across this forum, not this thread. I liked the look of what I saw with a number of intelligent an knowledgeable posters so joined in.

We could trade Political Scientists, too, in those opinions. I gave you my own opinion and did not search for a supporter's "opinion." I also have two degrees in that field so know a little about it and about the practitioners.

But, like everywhere on the Internet, every place seems to be a home for egotistical bullies.

You are not worth the trouble and I will stick to conversing with those who are.

[Zipperfish]

eureka wrote:

Actually, you instigated it. I "stumbled" across this forum, not this thread. I liked the look of what I saw with a number of intelligent an knowledgeable posters so joined in.

We could trade Political Scientists, too, in those opinions. I gave you my own opinion and did not search for a supporter's "opinion." I also have two degrees in that field so know a little about it and about the practitioners.

But, like everywhere on the Internet, every place seems to be a home for egotistical bullies.

You are not worth the trouble and I will stick to conversing with those who are.

All you've done is rile up the more sensitive conservatives on this thread by making reasoned arguments. So they've all gathered around, like a pack of outraged purple-assed baboons, to screech and fling faces at you. It's actually quite entertaining when viewed fom this context. Stick around!

[Mustang1]

eureka wrote:

Actually, you instigated it. I "stumbled" across this forum, not this thread. I liked the look of what I saw with a number of intelligent an knowledgeable posters so joined in.

We could trade Political Scientists, too, in those opinions. I gave you my own opinion and did not search for a supporter's "opinion." I also have two degrees in that field so know a little about it and about the practitioners.

But, like everywhere on the Internet, every place seems to be a home for egotistical bullies.

You are not worth the trouble and I will stick to conversing with those who are.

Ahhh...suck it up, princess

Thread suicide speech after you couldn't hack it with actual relevant evidence? I guess your trashcan opinion amounts to squat when it's put under an independent spotlight.

Let's see, nothing on either political scientist assessment either, but a banal appeal to false authority. Someone got caught cribbing without a clue. Nothing on the "cpc propaganda" i was allegedly parroting? Nada on anything even remotely on point but the ramblings of a bushleague partisan who's clearly reached the end of his intellectual tether. You're an troll, a hypocrite and a coward who thought they'd wow the thread with partisan generalizations and scampered about when they got called on to back them up. In short, your role was simply to act as a warning to others who want thread bomb.

There's a corning missing a suck - go find it.

Shuffle on, shuffle on.

[eureka]

Gee, I did not know that under that brusque commentary you really liked me!

[Mustang1]

eureka wrote:

Gee, I did not know that under that brusque commentary you really liked me!

Sorry, it's not that kind of site.

[Bruce_the_vii]

eureka wrote:

Actually, you instigated it. I "stumbled" across this forum, not this thread. I liked the look of what I saw with a number of intelligent an knowledgeable posters so joined in.

We could trade Political Scientists, too, in those opinions. I gave you my own opinion and did not search for a supporter's "opinion." I also have two degrees in that field so know a little about it and about the practitioners.

But, like everywhere on the Internet, every place seems to be a home for egotistical bullies.

You are not worth the trouble and I will stick to conversing with those who are.

The political internet forums are not the best, a lot of raw opinion an shakey memories. However here and there are some gems, and you get to see how other people think. I even go over to babel to educate me on how the left thinks. You have to read to understand they believe it.

[Gunnair]

eureka wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

eureka wrote:

Keep it up, McGuyver. You seem to be getting under Conservative (not conservative) skins. They are trying to shout you down rather than dispute your points. When they trot out the old canards (nonsensical) about Rae destroying Ontario, you know they have no rational argument.

I was not a fan of Layton socialism and told him so a few times. I supported the NDP still as a necessity to counter the Right Wing extreme that has usurped the throne in Canada.

But I do hold myself to be a Social Democrat.

Well, any reasonable points you may have made were destroyed by this.

You made the list of leftard extremeist idiot and will be treated as such.

I have a very long history of dealing with thoise who call rational people "leftard extremeist idiot" and similar niceties. I look forward to your treatment.

Your posts are hardly rational and do little more than drip with the standard partisan hackery of your breed. I look forward to pissing in your ear over it.

[Gunnair]

Zipperfish wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

eureka wrote:

Keep it up, McGuyver. You seem to be getting under Conservative (not conservative) skins. They are trying to shout you down rather than dispute your points. When they trot out the old canards (nonsensical) about Rae destroying Ontario, you know they have no rational argument.

I was not a fan of Layton socialism and told him so a few times. I supported the NDP still as a necessity to counter the Right Wing extreme that has usurped the throne in Canada.

But I do hold myself to be a Social Democrat.

Well, any reasonable points you may have made were destroyed by this.

You made the list of leftard extremeist idiot and will be treated as such.

No I think given the timbre of comments in this thread, eureaka's doesn't particularly stand out as egregious. Quite reasonable, in fact, in comparison to some others.

Not really. He began as quite reasonable but threw it all away with the partisan hackery above. Had he ditched the cheerleading schtick I would have been more impressed. As it stands, he hit the forum mud running with that. Now I can't tell him apart from the others.