I read the first few. They disagree with Harper, for the most part. There's no "hate" there. Just to save time, could you post an example of what you mean by "hate?" Opposition to the mission? Geeze.
Posted at 2007-12-27 08:01:50 [PermaLink]The Globe's anti-Harper comments have definitely increased in number over the last month or so.
Part of the reason, I suspect, is the torqued-up headlines the Globe creates for their articles.
This seems to hook the anti-Harper crowd, and for this article, many comments sarcastically start off with "What we GET, Harper is blah blah blah ..."
Anyway, I like to post on the Globe, taking shots at Dion whenever possible.
It's interesting that many of the anti-PMSH comments take offence at the "really get Afghanistan" wording. (Honestly, I would find that a bit insulting myself, but...) A careful reading of the article shows that they really don't quote PMSH saying much. First they fail to quote their question, rather they paraphrase it, then quote his response as "I don't know, the short answer is I don't know." How does that translate into a headline that reads "Harper wonders if Canadians really get Afghanistan"?
Later, they do quote larger comments by PMSH, but nothing in there translates into "really get Afghanistan." The headline is pure political spinning, and that's all the anti-Harper people had to read.
Oh, another interesting thing... take note of the geographical locations of the commenttors as it relates to their comments.
"This Blog Reader Wonders if Central Canadians Really Get How They're Being Led Around By the Media"
This whole 'hatred' thing disturbs me. Yes, I understand the concept of disagreement. I disagreed with most everything Cretien and Martin did or said.. I even disliked the two men. However, never did I spew anger and hate toward them the way so many do with Harper. Why do people 'hate' so easily? What's wrong with simply disagreeing. This trend really really disturbs me.
Posted at 2007-12-27 09:19:12 [PermaLink]I think the Liberal/NDP hatred of Harper is strikingly similar to the Democrat hatred towards Bush. It is amazing for a group of people to be so vehemently anti-American, yet use the same tactics as their bretheren to the South.
Posted at 2007-12-27 09:33:49 [PermaLink]This has to do with the jealosy the leftist loons have towards the USA.
These same people that bash Harper are the same people who were laughing when 9/11 went down.
You have to realize that Canada is only Canada because the USA didn't want to become a British colony.
So the USA sent all the pro -British people up to the north (now called Canada).
The left and the far left are so jealous of the USA, that they attack anything to be seen as being too American, and that includes Stephen Harper.
Canadians clearly do not get the Afghan mission.
Not because they're not smart enough, but because they hate the USA.
Dr.Dawg observes, “There's no ‘hate’ there.” I don’t agree.
Here are just a few extracts from the thread that are hardly exemplars of “fond admiration” for the Prime Minister. (Please note: the fractured syntax, mangled spelling, and virtual flecks of spittle are all from the original comments.)
=====
“Arrogant fossil!”
“We get that fascist threat in the form of Harper's rhetoric all of the time. It's time that Canadians stood up to the fascist threat and turfed this government.”
“It'll be nice when this poltroon is a footnote in history and I won't need to hear his misinformation or watch his beady little piggy eyes staring out at me from the newspaper and the TV screen.”
“Harper is a believer in the new world order of the neocons. They believe that the end justifies the means, sort of like Franco, Mussolini, and others who thought the end result would be a better world.”
“Teflon, ur just another Bush. […] Ur as dumb as that fencepost that leads America. The sooner both of you are gone the better the rest of the world will be.
“Harper reminds me of Hermann Goering. Both use or used too much make-up.”
“Bring our troops home and dump Harper and his sick gang of bloodthirsty, mindless idiots.”
“The only person who doesn't 'get it' is fat boy.”
“Perhaps he should explain his end-timer religious views to Canadians and find out if they like being 'led' by an extremist religious fanatic who is completely out of touch with his time and is so far out on the lunatic fringe that most Canadians don't know whether to laugh or cry at his dangerous and unstable behaviour.”
“Harper is leading possibly the most dangerous government to Canadian citizens in Canadian history.”
“Its always the cowards like Harper, and that sleazeball McKay, they are the ones calling for others to risk their lives for nothing.”
“Harper is the real coward, sending other to their deaths for no reason is the supreme cowardly act.”
“No it's Harper and the sissy conservatives that are not loyal Canadians.”
“Real Canadians wonder if Harper can ever tell the truth. Can We Really Trust ALIAR”
“Perhaps Mr. Harper is the one who doesn't get Afghanistan and should stop visiting the oval office offering hummers and should listen to what Canadians really want and abandon his Albertan redneck ways.”
=====
All are just a tad stronger than simple, reasoned “disagreement”. So I think Mark is correct in noting that many of the G&M comments are as hateful as they are irrational, with both in abundance. (And of course they are exactly the results intended by the Globe’s headline spin, as noted by “srw”.)
I think, with respect, that looking for ideological "character" in comboxes is a fool's errand. I could point to the spittle-flecked comments over at Kate's, or Malkin's, or Free Dominion, and maybe indeed I already have, and drawn some rhetorical conclusions, too. But one New Year's resolution I am making is not to do that sort of thing any more.
I actually asked Mark to point to some comments that qualified as "hateful," because I had only read the first few, and found them unexceptionable. The ones that 2Sheds quotes are run-of-the-mill angry. Hateful? Not so much. If you want hateful, check out Small Dead Animals, or Stormfront, or Shaidle's current stuff, which is well off the deep end. If you want sober conservative commentary, on the other hand, this is a good spot, and so are half-a-dozen other places I could name--Tarantino, Selley, Coyne, Thompson (who says he's not a conservative, but no matter).
There are shrieky people right across the political spectrum. It's just too easily to move from ideological critique to moral judgement about those with whom you disagree. I'm an offender too, so consider this in part a piece of self-criticism. Lucky I have you guys around to remind me of the error of my ways.
Mr. Harper is one of the best logical politicians we have, if not the best. It is therefore very difficult for the opinionated and hostile to counter his observations with anything but illogical, subjective responses. They see a logical comment or reference of his as their being "spoken down to". Not getting his logic means they're not getting Harper. If they can't get Mr. Harper and his logic, no wonder they don't "get Afghanistan".
Posted at 2007-12-27 12:04:53 [PermaLink]Gee Dawg, thanks for dropping by and offering up your back handed compliment.
The left is the hotbed of hatred in this country, and it's boiler is stoked by the MSM.Both these groups agendas are threatened every minute of every day that Stephen Harper remains in power.
Your comparison of Stormfront and Small Dead Animals is not only odious and tragically wrong in its delusion,It plays into the far left's méme of the right being extremists.Judging by the comments, it's the junior Marxists enjoying Canadian citizenship abroad who seem to be the most apoplectic.
Perhaps they will return home when PM Jack Layton offers them amnesty for the drug crime charges they no doubt are running from.Could be a long wait..
The rhetoric and the venom will increase till we see the next federal election.
This is what you see when our land is stable and prosperous..can you imagine how it would be if the left saw it as really desperate times?
You ain't seen noth'in yet folks..
"Perhaps they will return home when PM Jack Layton offers them amnesty for the drug crime charges they no doubt are running from.Could be a long wait.."
Are you out of your mind?
Dawg, a fun little poke at the exPats who post delusional leftist screeds on the G&M message boards..I am sure you know the types..
Always so willing to criticize Canada from a safe distance, and believe me, more than a few are in no hurry to return..
Anyhoo, my mental health just fine and mine is too, thanks for asking.
Dr Dawg: All that matters with respect to those types is that their minds (such as they are) are racked by blind hatred--and clearly that is what it is--of President Bush and Prime Minister Harper, e.g:
'Paul Chislett from Windsor, Canada writes: Mr. Harper, I "get" Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. It is a criminal occupation of a foreign country at the behest of the criminal Bush regime in Washington. I demand our troops out now and that you, sir, cease playing warlord.'
By that line of polemic (I shudder to use the word "reasoning") then the UN Security Council, the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan,
[External Link]
and NATO are all "criminal" organizations. But these people, in their anger or ignorance, just choose to ignore inconvenient truths.
And the Globe's misleading "get" in the headline fueled the fire.
And then there's the standard and stupid pipeline stuff:
[External Link]
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Mark,
FYI the Talmudim (Yerushalmi & Bavli) are akin to blogs in that a central text is surrounded by comments. Some comments seek to explain or to expand upon the central text, others to explain legal matters relating, others to tell stories, or just to roll about another comment... thoughtful stuff, all of it.
They differ from blogs [wince] in important ways. The compilers never did suffer trolls, for one.
Hey Kursk, we're doing well too!
"Your comparison of Stormfront and Small Dead Animals is not only odious and tragically wrong in its delusion..."
It's also demonstrably false and libelous.
But remember, this is John Baglow, who finds no problem with hanging out at Canadian Cynic - a site that has actually posted my address together with an explicit invitation to do me harm.
In their progressive, respectful world, there are only two types of women - those who agree with them, and c*nts. No wonder they can't recognize hate when they see it - it feels like home.
Interesting free association. Kate must be rattled. I have no idea whether Canadian Cynic ever threatened Kate with harm. Knowing her propensity for, er, exaggeration, I suspect this is very much in her own mind. But in any case, I had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it was, and have been commenting at CC's blog only relatively recently. Nor do I use words like "c*nts" to describe anyone. Never have. Not my style.
This all takes guilt by association to an entirely new level. Sort of like, well, "liberal fascism."
As for "libellous," bring it on, Ms. McMillan. The sheer, unvarnished hatred screeching from your blog speaks, rather loudly and gratingly, for itself.
Dawg,
"I actually asked Mark to point to some comments that qualified as "hateful," because I had only read the first few, and found them unexceptionable. "
You find their hate unexceptionable yet
"Hateful? Not so much. If you want hateful, check out Small Dead Animals, or Stormfront, or Shaidle's current stuff, which is well off the deep end. "
I have to wonder just how bad their hate would have to be for you to find it exceptionable. No wonder the Left could murder over 100million in the 20th century and still not find it "exceptionable" enough to ever address it.
Misreading, as usual. Is this a condition, or an attitude?
The first few comments weren't hateful at all. They were, as comments, unexceptionable.
Dawg,
Why don't you read the rest instead of hiding behind the "The first few comments ..."
or
"I read the first few."
At least I bother to read instead of pretending vile hatred doesn't exist on the left.
Please consider it a condition AND an attitude.
Dawg,
If you find these comments so inoffensive, I really have to wonder why you felt the need to ban me from your site?
What are you afraid of considering my overt politeness in addressing the issues on your site?
I realize you have difficulty in countering my arguments but I find your inconsistency in standards quite amusing.
"explicit invitation to do me harm."
"explicit invitation"? if this isn't the case (and i've reviewed the relevant matter to know that it isn't), then haven't you just libeled cc?
KEvron
"actually posted my address"
by "actually", do you mean your readily available email address? or do you consider a readily available po box number to be a proper address?
KEvron