Jack: Defending Sandy
Posted on 08 August 2008 by Jack
People who routinely visit this site never miss Sandy. Of all the people who come in here and write (there are several who have full access) Sandy is far and away the best writer on this link. The other day she posted an entry because she was angry, not because a decent argument had been made to refute her work on “Harper Accompishments“.
Rather she was upset because of the foul language and the dirt that certain websites were piling on her.
All should know that I invited Sandy to this site because I was impressed not only with her writing but also her life story.
In most cases I agreed with her and I was proud when she worked so hard to note what Harper has accomplished and wanted it available here.
Today, a somewhat young (I suspect) “no mind” sent me a letter.
It wasn’t much and true to form I couldn’t respond on his site because you need a “Blogger” ID to do so. Regardless, I can do so here. He appears to be begging for attention. Fine!
He has it.
It’s amazing how these people crawl out from under a rock when they think they have a victim. Happens everytime and when you go and check you always see the same thing. Rude words, comparisons with “pissy pants idiots” and indications of lack of knowledge on the part of a website (”CC”)which has no clue. I invited another idiot (Red Tory) yesterday to rebut Sandy properly. He declined the invitation.
I wonder why that is?
Perhaps because they all on the ropes?
It’s small wonder why this is happening.
“Anyway”…I decided this afternoon to close the comment area on Sandy’s entry. I’ve seen enough and it only reinforced my view that when the next election happens (whenever) Liberals are going to be slaughtered.
“The jigs up, people”.
We’re onto you and Hedy Fry (she of the burning crosses in BC) is headed for oblivion.
We’ve all seen enough and a final note to “CC”.
“People like you should be shot and pissed on” because you betray everything I have ever worked for over a long career defending “arseholes” just like you. Crawl back under your bridge and leave people who care about their country to deal with the situation.
You obviously don’t care and have no clue — unlike Sandy.
How do you like me now?
Popularity: 46% [?]
August 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
What was never explained was why Sandy is being targeted in the same way as some of the more offensive right wing bloggers. She does not attack individuals, start flame wars or make blatantly bigoted statements like some of CC’s other targets (for whom his strategy is ideal). Why attack on that level? It’s like using TNT to catch a mouse.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
It’s because she is attracting attention to things that the “left” would rather the public didn’t know.
No other reason.
She’s very dangerous to certain people and I will add that I like this because Sandy has drawn the “mindset of the left” out into the open where we can attack them…and indeed we will.
It’s a happening thing.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I for one enjoy reading Sandy’s comments and find them to be well balanced, articulate and properly researched. There are many morons out there, mainly from the Looney left who as Jack Nicholson once said in one of his movies “You (looney left) cant handle the truth.”
August 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Somehow, I still feel I wasn’t missing anything before I knew that Canadian Cynic’s blog existed. Most likely they are disappointed that Sandy won’t let them trash her Harper’s Accomplishments blog from within its comment section, so they have to do it on their own site where nobody will notice. It’s either that or the fact that Paul Martin’s only accomplishment was exposing the most egregious of Chretien’s long list of scandals.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
You may not know this but “CC” is my best friend right now. Everytime I want to “point” I’ll use him.
I hope he can handle the negative traffic although I doubt it.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
It’s because she is attracting attention to things that the “left” would rather the public didn’t know.
I agree.
And I find they tend to jump on the ones who seem most threatening.
It just makes me even more determined to vote Conservative if this is an example of what the alternatives have to offer.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I’m laughing. Lulu is picking on me at CC’s site. Maybe when Sandy get’s back from the cottage we can really go to work on this crowd.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Just like the loony socialist left, when they are confronted with the truth, they have no response other than ad-hominem attacks, foul language and grade 3 schoolyard put downs. These are the ones who feel they have the eternal right to govern our country. Unfortunately too many Canadians are either too lazy to vote intelligently for the country, or only have their narrow self interest in mind when they enter the voting booth, that is if they even bother to vote. The stronger and more vicious attacks really show how frightened they are.
mid island mike
August 8th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
It’s because she is attracting attention to things that the “left” would rather the public didn’t know./i>
Oh, no doubt about it. All her links to the Harper government’s web pages are secrets THE LEFT (imagine that with scary blood font) is hoping won’t get out soon.
Don’t be so ridiculous. Don’t be so dumb.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Sorry, Jack, but CC is an inverse black hole. All the attention you shower on him, negative or otherwise, is sucked up by the meglomaniacal ego, and then twisted and showered back in profane particulates that are based entirely on ad hominems and omissions. His readers feast on the entertainment value that is attempting to foray across his event horizon of vulgarity, and once you are sucked in, the only loser will be, unfortunately, you. The reason being that you realize that the more you fight against the black hole of illogical platitudes, the more it sucks you in and defeats you with a resounding unwillingness to participate in reality-based discussions.
Unlike many leftist blogs, Canadian Cynic would die if it were only left alone. Unfortunately, not unlike picking at a scab, Canadian Cynic’s pus-filled diatribes are reinforced every time a person responds to his vacuous vernacular of leftism.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Unlike many leftist blogs, Canadian Cynic would die if it were only left alone.
Actually, he would wither and blow away if Conservatives stopped being so stupid. Since that’s not going to happen anytime soon, he’ll be around for quite a while.
You can stop looking of course.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Wow. It’s eerie. You guys actually think you’re right.
Weird.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:45 am
We don’t think we’re right, we know we’re right.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:08 am
sandy’s writing has always been a good read. worth thinking about, something to discuss. the left has trouble with anything that doesn’t make you a victim that they will lead to the light at the cost of you soul.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am
In overviewing what has transpired in the last few days, I ask myself… what have I gained by contemplating the vulgar musings of CC and his cheering section?
Zero.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
I have never gone to CC’s site until now. Even on Sandy’s site I resisted but I only want to say that I agree with Raphael.
Any and all attention allows them to exist. They appear to be not worth the attention we are paying them. Cheers.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:35 am
Use the stupid things they say but stay polite oneself is the best at least for an initial reply: When it turns into abusive ranting I think the best is to NOT FEED the TROLLS.
If someone can’t or won’t respond to the specifics of an argument it’s a waste of time debating them directly: Now using their words against them can be fun and useful ammunition they have been ” kind enough ” to have supplied themselves ! How, ” Un-Liberal ” of them since liberal in the classical sense is to be open to rational argument and be for justice and the rights of the individual in opposition to autocratic governments of any political stripe ? Hey, but that’s just my understanding of what ” liberal ” used to mean: Left or right had little or nothing to do with it I believe.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Raphael Alexander is correct.
Trying to refute whatever CC and his cohorts spew out only legitimizes that type of venom.
Why validate what they have to say?
The temptation would be to sink to that contemptible level, to reply in kind. Is that what conservatives are about? I doubt it.
As I cited in a comment at Sandy’s COTM site:
“I support the bigot’s right to speak out, as if I start limiting them, they may start limiting me. I also support my right to ignore them.” Laura Packer
We would all do well to heed the last part of the quote.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I couldn’t respond on his site because you need a “Blogger” ID to do so.
Too funny.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Shorter Gabby:
“Bibble, bibble, natter natter, blither blather, mewl, pule, whinge, moan…”
Etcetera.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I couldn’t respond on his site because you need a “Blogger” ID to do so.
What a coincidence — I can’t respond here because you moderate my comments out of existence. So much for free speech, Jack.
And you can respond at our site to your little heart’s content once you get a Blogger ID. Which requires that you have a functioning email address. And fill out a form. All of which is free and takes about 2 minutes of your life. God, what censoring monsters we are … unlike you, for example.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
“Trying to refute whatever CC and his cohorts spew out only legitimizes that type of venom.”
The funny thing is that the venom is legitimate. And often times it is irrefutable. So what do you do then? Oh, right: complain about rude language and ignore the substance of what’s actually being said.
August 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
See, fellow conservatives?
Renee and Liberal have just proven my point.
They want their puerile taunts to provoke a response.
Their taunts are good examples of “mental masturbation.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mental+masturbation
August 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Dear Gabby:
Put up or shut up. Now go away, or I shall have to taunt you a second time.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
CC, how opposed can you possibly be to implemented tax relief in two past Conservative budgets? You support your personal family don’t you? Nastiness aside, try seeing the upside — you get to keep more of your hard-earned paycheque. Who’s to argue with that?
I’d add, some are concerned they’re “all the same.” This institued accomplishments won’t be rescinded as per the usual under Liberal admins. Some do keep their words, translating them into action. There won’t be a “tax shift/shaft” under our present gov’t. Reconsider your support carefully and honestly. Arguments should be cancelled, insults are baseless. Some Conservatives, many I would say, want the program(s) turned around for everybody. Our present leadership has been trying with some noted efficiency to get the messages into our mail boxes via one page, very effective leaflets. Take the time and trouble to fill them out and state your case. I’d wager you’d get a reasonable return response if you have a legitimate complaint. Rest easy. Demos of civility aid the case. Not discounting that justified anger is appropriate at times — just not all the time, you see.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Shorter Anna: “Since CC provided an explicit and meticulous refutation of one of Sandy’s accomplishments involving helicopters, I will quickly change the subject and challenge him on something entirely different.”
August 9th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It does have to be substance over unfortunate chosen modes of expression. It’s refreshing to see CC worked up about Canada’s need to secure helicopters and heavy airlift capability. We’ve been borrowing them from Nato allies. How fast can you assemble a helicopter, CC? If you drop the personal attacks, you will find your stated position will work better for all responders and readers. Only a suggestion of course.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Thanks for responding CC. We can all work it out by listening closely to each other and WORKING OUT THE FACTS. Part of the game is allowing manipulative leadership to goad Canadians to get at each other’s throats. Doesn’t work for us and working out real, sometimes justified angers, is a healthy way to proceed.
Justified anger should never be dismissed or ignored by reasonable people. We have to focus on what works for VOTERS of any stripe. The “stripes” at the moment are a in a perpetrated confusing jumble. We can work it out. No doubt about that! So that we all reap the benefits going forward.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Please take a look as I just put up a refutation to refute what CC has written today. While the leasing of helicopters is not yet on my list, when they are received, they will be. Why? Because they are a stipulation in the Manley Report’s recommendations. It does not matter where they come from, just that they are sent to Afghanistan.
And, what did the previous Liberal government purchase exactly, particularly since it was the Martin government who sent the Canadian military into COMBAT in Kandahar province — without the requisite equipment?
On another point, for all those who don’t have Word Press as the blog platform, you cannot leave a comment at CC unless you have an e-mail address account with blogger. Jack does not. I do.
The points in my refutation are: (1) Canada’s military spending is at its highest since the end of WWII; and (2) four C-17’s were purchased with the last one received just recently.
Therefore, to be blunt. None of what CC says in his post about my point #33 nor the procurement of helicopters is accurate. They are his opinions which he is obviously entitled to.
However, what is truly unfortunate, is the anti-female language he uses. Douchebaggery? Harpergasm? There is no doubt in my mind that CC is one sick puppy.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Just so no one misunderstands that what we are talking about here is not simply a disagreement between people on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
No, in CC’s non-refutation of my item # 33 — he uses the following examples of misogyny — the hatred towards women.
(1) His title: The Douchebaggery of Sandy Crux’ Harper Government Accomplishments. Why refer to a douche, a female hygience item? How is that relevant to any substantive political discussion?
(2) “Where Sandy Crux gives her hero Stephen Harper a sloppy, wet one thusly:” My list is about the government, the government who is led by Stephen Harper. Harper is not my hero. He is my prime minister. I give him the same respect I gave both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, even though I did not like what they were doing to this country.
(3) “Sandy’s latest gorge-inducing Harpergasm.” What can anyone say about that kind of disrespectful garbage? As I said before, it just proves CC, whoever he or she is, and I assume it’s a man, is a very sick puppy.
(4) “Backtracking clusterfuck.” There was no backtracking clusterfuck. Sorry but CC was wrong. No matter how much venom he spewed, he was wrong.
Note: I have been researching school yard and cyber bullying by young people. Is it any wonder that it is becoming such a problem, a dangerous problem for parents, when you have grown adults acting like CC on the Internet?
CC — I know you won’t listen but it’s worth trying. Stop writing the foul mouth garbage for the sake of the next generation. I don’t know if you have kids or not, but think about them. I am almost certain that one way or the other, they and other impressionable kids are reading what you write. Violence towards others doesn’t just happen. It starts with bullying and verbal abuse. At least, think about it.
August 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
If CC’s objective is to drive regular visitors and respondents away then he/she is acheiving his/her goal in spades. This is exactly what happens at other sites such as SDA. The trolls take over and dominate the comments as we write back and forth on how est to deal with them.
They sit back and watch the the blog dynamic totally change.
Again I suggest the best response is no response. When I comment I always ask for email alerts until the trolls appear and then i avoid the site until they have moved on.
There is NO way to win with these guys because any response is a win for them. please everyone ignore them so we can get back to having reasonable discussions about important issues.
Sandy, you are supposed to be having R&R this weekend. Hope the weather is co-operating. Cheers.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Oh, and by the way, thanks to Jack for this post. I have been away for a couple of days R & R. Appreciate all the supportive comments as well. Life will go on as will my keeping track of the Harper Government Accomplishments.
Life is too short to be fighting all the time, whether it’s cyber disagreements or otherwise. I will be having a baby shower for my granddaughter this coming week and that is going to be much more fun.
Therefore, even though a late arrival, I will be signing off on this thread.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
SOR — A grandson arrived with a laptop. Mistake! However, he is now leaving. So, as I said in the last comment, signing off.
Yes, the weather is great. A little on the cool side but I love it that way.
August 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Obviously Sandy does not need defending by me and SOR makes a good point also but I note that many people who had never heard of Sandy’s “list” (or read it) now have thanks to CC and his trolling buddies.
It’s also interesting that he has referred 548 visitors to my site (it’s in my stats) because everyone is wondering what the big fuss is about. He’s also not getting a lot of comments when you consider the numbers so maybe the lights are coming on as people mutter “Yah, but what about that list?”
Flame wars work you know. Kate (SDA) knows all about that stuff.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I guess I have to ask what we’re really trying to accomplish here.
If it’s to encourage CC & company to improve their vocabulary, then I think it may well be a waste of time.
But if it’s about flame wars, well that could be fun.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:49 am
On the other hand, I agree with Jack that many new visitors are now becoming familiar with Sandy’s list, which wouldn’t have happened without the assistance of CC and RT.
And I haven’t heard any convincing arguments against ‘the list’ yet.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
A decided benefit was the result of the unfortunate filthy name calling over Canada’s necessary procurement of military materiele (helicopters). Over 500 readers got to read the off-course debate and got exposure to the fact that had Canada secured heavy airlift vehicles and helicopters, many soldiers would have been saved. Probably civilians on the ground as well. What’s not to understand regarding the military requisitions. Thanks to the former Liberal admins, we’re behind in Nato approved procurements and our military personnel have been and are at a disadvantage due to the unforeseen delays. Canada’s begged/borrowed to mee the demand.
Of course part of the Left’s ideology — a big part, is the stance that the Afghan war is “not necessary.” It was only the central training ground for murderous lunatics by even some of the Left’s standards.
I only skimmed the thread and my comment was not fully informed as to the filth of the insulted levied at Sandy and Jack. Totally unmerited even while both tried to address and inform of facts of helicopter requisitions. Long neglected and cancelled by Liberals while in office.
Hopefully many of the multiple readers now have new views on why they are necessary, including CC and RT.
Some on this site would vehemently defend Sandy and Jack, based on their balanced, always fair assessments of the Conservative initiatives and implements which have moved us forward to resolutions of many problems.
Sandy doesn’t need this vicious attack in what is probably one of her happiest weeks — a baby shower for a granddaughter with the upcoming event of the birth of a great grandchild. She’s a proven lady of first magnitude because under duress, she’s never resorted to expletives like some of us who can’t tolerate the unbelievable reports that defy logic, basic humane issues.
Jack, has the patience of Job, IMO, due to long years of brutal experience, and like Sandy, is a gentleman of the first magnitude, proven over two years of my reading.
Notice to CC, RT and other ideological stances that would spew hatred in midst of a serious discussion/debate (the helicopter procurements), you cut out baseless, personal attacks on people dedicated to factual reports and practical solutions, as is our gov’t. How does your filthy language aid the debate? It doesn’t. Youth are reading. If behaviours and speech like this get regular airing, none of us will get anywhere we want to go, including you.
If your speech is drug and alcohol induced, sympathies from members of this board abound, but you must deal with those issues.
Some of us would count on the slim chance you’ve been convinced by the presentation of facts which Sandy and Jack continued to outline, despite your attacks.
Notice, despite the depressing discussion, people had a chance to vote in the poll that just closed. Readers did not overwhelmingly vote for the Liberals. In fact, very few did. I think CC you’ve lost the argument and are now prepared to join in on practical, necessary solutions.
The delays in delivery are unfortunate, but no doubt are being worked out for the future.
Final thought. Had you spoken to our Nato declared enemies’ spouses (mates) the way you spoke here, you’d definitely be defending your personal being against their murderous aggressions. Our soldiers, being what and who they are, would step in in your defence. You might want and require it of them.
Now, anyone here is flexible and willing to speak about the helicopters, but cut out the filthy talk. Not so very hard if you want to be taken seriously.
Provoking a fight is a brainless venture, getting everyone exactly nowhere.
Proves one thing, never comment without reading the whole thread. I extended you an unmerited benefit of the doubt. So had to return to set the record straight. The employment of civility is in your court, fella or gal whichever.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Yawn.
You folks have your heads so far up your own rectums is not even funny.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
ol’red has his head so far up cessy’s rectum he’s helping him/her breathe…this is fun, eh red?