TJCook

TJCook

101p

2,060 comments posted · 9 followers · following 0

337 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - No country for good men · 1 reply · +12 points

Holy crap, the haters are out tonight.

I'll just note that: "Having seen how Michael Ignatieff was treated, can any reasonably intelligent and ambitious person be ever expected to go into national politics?"

...makes sense whatever one thinks of Ignatieff the politician. It certainly makes politics about as appealing as a muddy kindergarten class to me. And as much as I gnashed my teeth at Ignatieff's political chops, it's nice to see him appreciated here as an accomplished and valuable man, not just a failed Karl Rove wannabe.

337 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - What now? (II) · 0 replies · -3 points

"When the time comes, hopefully in a few short years, we will be looking to Conservatives to accept their replacement by a fearlessly (if prudently) progressive government, without raising existential issues about the country or our democracy."

Shyeah. When the time comes, Harper will burn this motherf*cker down before he'll turn over the keys to some Progressive. Godwin's Law will weep before the onslaught of attack ads and Parliament will be prorogued until the ink fades on the writ.

Is there something about the Globe that encourages such denial of reality? Maybe the water coolers are contaminated.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 0 replies · +8 points

Ah, the intersection of racism and political expediency.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 7 replies · +9 points

Read it again, dumbass. I said that the Cadman case fell short of standards for actual evidence, and would be damning only by your ridiculously low standards.

Honestly, you should at least re-read your own stuff before hitting "submit". You might have fewer Nike abrasions on the back of your own throat.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 0 replies · +5 points

Ah, the "news you watched" didn't include the word "allegedly"?

I guess that meets your high standard of proof, eh?

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 0 replies · +9 points

Ah, just what this situation needs: more innuendo.

Got a name for that councillor? Got a link to the quote? And even if you do, is that quote any more than innuendo? How was is "clear" that the place was dodgy? Is there any evidence that Layton got any more than a massage?

Put up or shut up, all of you. It's easy to inflate a story, it's very difficult to provide any actual proof.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 9 replies · +5 points

Heh - if your standards held any bearing in the real world, Harper, "Senator" Finley and Tom Flanagan would be in jail for trying to bribe Chuck Cadman.

Fortunately, responsible adults have higher standards than that.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 1 reply · +8 points

Like I said, self-awareness isn't exactly forthcoming, is it?

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 11 replies · +8 points

Really? Can you provide a quote in which the officer (if his notes are accurate) described Layton as being "in a compromising position"?

Direct quote, please.

338 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The Commons: Questions... · 2 replies · +8 points

"He was in what was actually a whore house..."

See, here's an excellent opportunity to employ the new word you've learned, "allegedly".