Stronach's leaving politics.
In her statement today, Stronach reportedly said "I first met Liam O'Brien when I entered politics and he was a wannabe Louis Tully. I wasn't impressed then and I have grown less impressed over time. "
For his part, O'Brien just demonstrates yet again the ethically bankrupt - let alone sexist - nature of political commentary in some quarters.
Yep.
You guessed it.
He calls her a whore.
Incidentally, there's a comments section, in case you are in the mood.
The word you are thinking of has an "r" as the second letter.
11 comments:
Well Ed, once again you've taken a very dishonest approach on this issue and in the way you descrbe my comments.
Since you're either stupid enough not to have fully read my blog post and seen which one of the defintions of "whore" I believe applies to not only Belinda Stronach but also folks like Brison and others or you chose to ignore the facts and say what you like, I guess I'll have to copy it here for you in bold. . .
". . .Princeton University's English Dictionary defines "whore" in three ways. The first two i need not mention - they aren't relevant here. The third is "to compromise oneself or one's principles for money or other gains;"
I believe #3 is a very appropriate definition that describes Stronach's brief and pointless political career. When she was denied her share of limelight and microphone time, she decided to simply compromise her claimed "principles" for the gains she wanted.
Political whores include Scott Brison, Bill Matthews, Diane St. Jacques, Andre Harvey and many others of all stripes and backgrounds. . . "
How you could think you'd get away with calling my comments sexist given that I was referring to that 3rd definition and pointed out that she is in a list [which includes mostly men] is beyond me.
Then again, maybe this wasn't a case of you not reading the post. I think you read it and then decided to misrepresent it anyway. Sad. Sick. Smear games. Thought you'd eventually learn to get beyond this.
Finally, I'll not take lectures on ethics and the like from somebody like yourself who just completely misrepresented my post and who seems content to defend a politician like Stronach, who did indeed sell out her proclaimed policies and principles in a matter of days in May 2005.
If you think she didn't, I look forward to the spinaround you'll need to use to prove it. . .
It's almost as entertaining as the slime and misrepresentation you just spat out while lecturing people on ethics . . .
Was I also being sexist to Brison and Emerson when I called them whores by the same defintion?
Explain why you think I'm being sexist here, or if you have a shred of decency about you, I'd hope you'd retract. That said, I won't hold my breath. . .
Clearly in the word of Ed, any critcism of Belinda Stronach is unethical and sexist . . . even if it is based on her own actions and is applied the same way it was applied with people of the other sex. . . .
There are two things about your lengthy rationalisation.
First, the length of your posts is inversely proportional to the substance of your point.
Weak point = Huge post. on that aspect, your posts and your comments here speak for themselves.
Second, the use of the word whore was sexist when it was used the first time on Ms. Stronach and it remains so. Neither you nor other members of the federal party you support ever considered using the word whore, uttered the word whore or made any other use of the word in the opportunities to apply it to a male.
Irrespective of the dictionary definitions, it was used in respect of Ms. Stronach when she crossed the floor as a sexist slur.
Your use of the vulgarity is as unnecessary as your comments on Anne Budgell, irrespective of how you used it.
Unlike you, I do not use slime and misrepresentation to make a point. Your efforts to drag me to your level simply by making the accusation cannot stick. I simply point out your own words and let them condemn the argument you make.
With far fewer words, of course.
Oh. I should correct one comment. You did call David Emerson a whore.
But then he started out as a Liberal, so you can likely rationalize that somehow on a partisan basis.
You also included Bill Matthews in your list of whores, even though he did not meet your criterion of having crossed the floor for supposed personal gain.
So what do we establish by this?
That you use the vulgar term as you see fit to apply against those who have transgressed against your favoured federal political party.
I hope you enjoyed the traffic.
Ed, I called Bill Matthews, Diane St. Jacques, Dave Price, Andre, Scott Brison and yes, Belinda Stronach whores -- by the definition as I provided it -- a definition you continue to ignore -- as you tend to ignore any facts that don't suit your slime slinging here.
Bill Matthews crossed to be on the government side and have an easier ride at the polls. I'd call that personal gain. I suppose the tricky part might be nailingd own what, if any, principles he might have had . . .
On Emerson, I went so far as to sign (and encourage others to sign) the petition to have him recalled. Again, you leave all that out and assume I'm a sexist and merely being partisan. . ..
I used the term and explained why I believed it to be approriate and which definition I meant when I say it. I did that in the days of Matthews' and St. Jacques and Price -- back before Belinda's politcal croquet was ever at issue -- I used it re Brison with same specific explanation offered and I used it with Stronach too.
It's simply wrong for you to lump me in with anyone else's use of the term or to call me "sexist" for using it. You know it. Have the decency to own up to it and apologize for the stupid assumptions and smears you make here.
Your use of the epithet whore is based on the claim - if I follow your convoluted rationalizations correctly - that these individuals crossed the floor primarily or solely for personal gain.
Do you have any evidence that this was the motivation in any of the cases? Clearly the Matthews matter doesn't so already we have at least one example of you doing nothing but attacking someone in a vicious manner without even sticking to your own criteria.
As always, though, the length of your posts and vehemence of your your self-defence is consistence with the weakness of your argument.
If you had neither evidence, nor for that matter something good to say, then perhaps you might simply have avoided a comment altogether.
Like you snide comments about Anne Budgell, for example.
Ed, if the best you can offer in retort is that my posts are "long" and then try to spin this as having some sort of meaning, then you're running out of gas. . .
I offered my opinion of people like Matthews and Emerson and Stronach and Brison and others.
Stronach and Brison said a lot more that they ended up abandoning in order to do the floor cross . . . Not sure that Matthews or Emerson ever held many opinions or priniples on much at all.
I see you're no longer calling me sexist, but don't have the decency to apologize for slinging that bit of slime to begin with so now it's about "prove it."
I can't prove that Scotty B just wanted more ego trip and a nice driver. I can't prove Belinda just wanted more microphone time. I can't prove Bill Matthews needed more pork for his riding or an easier run at his seat. I can't prove what they're not too likely to say, but I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who listens to what they DID say that it was mostly bullshit.
I was in the room when Brison voted FOR the merger he cited as the reason for his departure. His deal was finalized, I suspect at some point after that. His riding EDA was among the last to know -- also about as classy as a whore.
Bill Matthews offered not much reason at all -- except as I recall some mumblings about his riding -- which didn't really do any better in the long run anyway.
Belinda was trumpeting policies and saying things that even a loyalist need not say in order to be a loyal partisan -- she was standing up to vote to have a previous corrupt government brought down . . . and then mere days later she was over joining them.
I call it political whoring in all cases. I've clearly explained my use of the word. Call it selling out. Call it sad and crass politics call it whatever you want. You seem to be among the few who seem to think it's busienss as usual. . . . maybe you can act as a conduit here for future sellouts. . . you seem to know the schtick and seem to take quite the exception to anyone who points it out.
As for Budgell, nice subject change, but as it goes, even not long after I spoke in that comments section, others joined in to agree with the comments about style and the like that I mentioned there.
So you have no evidence that individuals crossed the floor for reward?
Thanks for confirming that all you have are self-serving rationalisations to sustain your vicious personal attacks.
The original title of the post (which I see has been changed) had "whorehouse" in the title. I don't think that's in keeping with the "3rd definition".
But what do I know?
Dennis -- you don't know much. I've made it as clear as I possibly can what definition was meant -- as I did when she first crossed over - and as I did when I used precisely the same word in the other examples mentioned. Also, the title of the post was not changed since its final publication.
Ed - I am entitled to my opinion. I don't think it's an unreasonable one given that I've shown that there were are examples of personal gain and no real reasons given for the crossover that didn't turn out to be crap upon closer scrutiny and consideration of their own words and actions. . . I guess I don't have signed affidavits or testimony from a Vulcan, post-mind-meld, but I tell you what it looks like. It looks like political whoredom for all these individuals.
Liam's 'abhorrent' comments seem to be typical of the commentary, and blogumentary effusions that have followed the 'totally unexpected' announcement from BS.
Liam's subsequent superfulous protestations are somewhat different from any other poster, in that nobody else makes any attempt to qualify their sexist comments, much less apologize for same.
It is not al all surprising that we have such a gender inequity in the two elected government houses.
CP - http://knoticaltimes.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment