You’re Not Entitled to Our Entitlements!

Baiting The Left 99 Comments

In the wake of the tsunami that was Stephen Harper’s massive majority victory on May 2nd, it has been quite a sight to see how the pundits on the Left have dealt with their anger & denial over this momentous event.
In the past, SDA regular ‘ET’ proffered an interesting theory that the Left’s theory of political nirvana wasn’t actually one of equality for all but rather a two tiered system where the peasantry (that would be you & me) was ruled by a tiny, intellectual elite from on high, albeit with a sizable bureaucracy of technocrats who served as an incompetent, but effective, buffer between the rulers and the peons.
Now that the Leftist elites have been shut out of power for at least the next 4 years, they are truly having a most difficult time dealing with the fact that someone else is being given their entitlements. Their reactions are somewhat akin to an adult baby throwing a tantrum. Here’s a recent sampling:

Think back to when Liberal governments did exactly the same sorts of things. Do you honestly think there’d be the same outcries from these people? Or would we hear something more akin to this?

99 Replies to “You’re Not Entitled to Our Entitlements!”

  1. “It is unlikely the Harper government would change course entirely (or listen to the NDP’s sensible advice)” WHAT? When did the ndp ever have any discussion that could be termed sensible advice?

  2. libertariansarealsogreatinbed, who said there was a “conspiracy”? It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a political culture.

  4. The histrionics are very amusing. On reading these submissions one must wonder if the world is truly about to end tomorrow.

  5. Thanks for thinking of me. I tend to flit between SDA and Pajamas Media and find I can only handle one site at a time.
    As for today – I’ve been gardening. Went up to the garden centre, got lots of perennials for a shade garden that has not only shade to deal with but also squirrels and raccoons. The latter dig up my plants, eat the roots and toss the leaves. Or, on some, they eat the leaves. Entirely. Just leave the stems. My feelings towards them are exactly similar to my feelings for socialists, the left, unionists and such…
    Now – as for the media, I don’t watch Canadian News. No CTV, no CBC. Nothing. Also, no TVO Steve Paiken. Don’t read the Star editorials, nor the G&M. Nothing. Can’t stand them all.
    They are all trapped in some level of life that is unconnected to reality. That’s our Media and our civil service – those nice unionized govt jobs filled by grads of arts and humanities, whose ‘minds’ operate solely within the cloud-level of words, words and more words. Words connected to other words. But – Unconnected to hard data, facts and the basics of reality.
    That’s a state-of-mind that, as noted, sees society as two-class, with an elite Set of Wise Guardians ruling, wisely and ‘in a human rights sense’, over the unwise unwashed ready-to-stray ignoramuses…namely: us.
    Their rhetoric is sophist, empty, patronizing, filled with vapid phrases that are meaningless as terms: social justice, human rights, even such terms as ‘democracy’ and morality – when used by these people, they are empty. BUT, their agenda is not to inform or enter into a debate; the agenda of using such terms is pure emotional manipulation.
    When someone brings up the phrase of ‘human rights’ in their argument, that’s supposed to shut you up. How can you dissent, object, critique an argument that has such a tag attached to it? Hmmm?
    It’s incredible how our media – before this election, had only one topic of interest: When’s an election? They seemed to have no other topic for several years. Now – with the election – I’ve no idea what they are talking about. And don’t care.

  6. Howie – aw cr@p, is that tomorrow!? I need to get my act together, stuff is always sneaking up on me… although, come to think of it, I guess it doesn’t matter, anymore, really.
    Well, it’ll take those smug Mayans down a peg or two at least.

  7. ET, good to hear from you. Your sentiments about raccoons, the media, and socialists: mine exactly.
    Yes, the media got their election: schadenfreude. Like seeing a dead raccoon on the road—we’ve paid $thousands to repair the damage they’ve done to our home—it’s a pleasure to see the angst of the progressives. It really is!

  8. Harper just threw Obama under a bus . . . Canada will NOT support Obama’s abandonment of Israel.
    Yea Steve . . . . Realizing Obama is a moron who can’t be trusted and will sell out a trusted ally to curry favour with the Arab League is very smart politics.

  9. She was stalked by a man for 5 years? Would love to know more about that, actually no I don’t want to know about it.
    I bet it was a persistant telemarketer or something.

  10. RE: Mallick’s five year stalker. Probably from Statistics Canada, looking for her completed 2006 long form census.

  11. I bet it was a persistant telemarketer or something.
    ~bob
    Likely a guy from a bill collection agency.

  13. Good to see your comments ET.
    I always look forward to your comments, especially your grammar. You’ve made me a better writer(I’d like to think).
    Anyways, I believe you owe me an “I told you so” as PMSH and the CPC have scrapped the Carbon Tax.(that’s more than you’ll get from MND eh?haha)
    I enjoy your optimism when it comes to the outcomes of issues that don’t seem too optimistic. Thanks for that.

  16. Hey Mamba, I guess this would be a good time to iron out our “plans” with ET (since we’re all together today). If I recall, ET’s got the chips, because she doesn’t collect DVDs or Blue Rays.
    What’s the format in Hell anyways?
    How much you wanna bet that in Hell: they drive on the left side of the street, use 220V electricity, and think Football is a “lovely” game?
    Perhaps it’s time for an epiphany. I don’t think I can handle Hell if it’s anything like Europe.
    All of that said, tomorrow is as good a time as ever for JC to return; after all, Obama DID throw Israel “under the bus”. There IS something creepy about that timing.

  19. Rick:
    It’s generally accepted that Harper is a powerful leader (and he is). That article is stating all the advantages he has right now which is turn make his position even more powerful. Could you point out where in the article it says that he is too powerful?
    I’m also curious as to what you consider is included under the title of MSM. It’s mentioned briefly in the article you posted, but the majority of our media is conservative.
    Check out the election endorsements for the past three elections:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011

  20. Harper used to be all about electoral reform and proportional voting, don’t think he’ll be bringing that up anytime soon
    I don’t recall Harper espousing proportional representation, although it might’ve appealed to him during the right-wing vote-splitting days – do you have a citation?

  21. dcardno:
    Harper co-authored an article called “Our Benign Dictatorship” in 1996 which called for electoral reform (particularly proportional representation) to bring down the Liberals. I found the article posted: http://splatto.net/blog/post/2009/09/12/Our-Benign-Dictatorship.aspx
    Of course, in the article he mentions that although many have pushed for electoral reform, once they come into power they don’t go through with it. This is because they got into power via the current system, so why would they change it?
    It’s relevant for the current situation as well. I don’t think it’s likely that he will push through an electoral reform like proportional representation because it would eliminate his majority government.

  22. ET, nice to hear from you. I have the identical sentiments regarding racoons. I have found two sure fire ways to get rid of them. A skunk trap being one of the ways. 😉
    Robert, this is a great thread with a great caption. It is beginning to sink in to the “natural governing party” and its supporters that they are no longer in charge even with the assistance of their Marxist friends.

  23. Indiana Homez – thanks. But, did I ever make a bet or even comment with you about Harper and the carbon tax? I don’t recall…But I’m glad he’s scrapping it.
    Now for other things. The Wheat Board; the HRC Section 13, the gun registry – which is not about guns and safety but about civil service jobs in the Maritimes (NB I think?)
    Harper in favour of proportional voting? I sure that’s wrong. Never. Proportional voting takes the power away from the electorate and puts it in the hands of a small unelected Set of Party Political Decision-Makers. It is this set who decide WHO gets to be an MP. Not the electorate who merely vote for a party not an accountable individual. I’m strongly, strongly opposed to proportional voting.
    As for ‘electoral reform’ – I’m not sure what is meant by this. Certainly, Harper wants the seat allocations brought up to date. At the moment, for example, the West is underrepresented in population by about 11 seats. Quebec doesn’t want these extra seats added to the West because it wants to retain House power over the West.
    As for what our media pundits say about the CPC and Harper – I don’t care, I don’t care. I expect nothing of integrity, principles, reason, facticity or other intelligent evocations from our media. They are united in their utter ignorance and bigotry – and isolated from the Canadian people who, after all, elected a majority CPC.
    I know these morose pundits try to tell us, ‘but, but 60% of Canadians didn’t vote for Harper’. Rubbish. That fallacious use of statistics also means that 70% didn’t vote for Layton and 80% didn’t vote for Ignatieff. So what? That’s not how our elections proceed; we don’t vote against someone; we vote for an individual/party. And since we have four federal parties (heh, that includes the Bloc), well, the options and the statistics are broader than a two-party system.
    Again, I don’t care what ignorant and intellectually isolate pundits talk about; they belong, with their opinions, as I used to tell my students, in the coffee shops. Let them stay there and chatter, chatter their sophistry.

  24. Peter O’Donnell: “So our patronage sh*tstorm is good because theirs would have been bad? Is that the new standard around Harperland?”
    No. I don’t think so.
    PM Harper has a plan — and he’s not going to let the MSM or the Opposition know what it is just at this moment. Why should he? He’s a master strategist and I suspect there is method in what appears to be his madness.
    Read Stephen Taylor’s take on it. I think there may be some logic in it.
    http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/05/cabinet-shuffle-and-senate-appointments/#disqus_thread

  25. Bill Stewart wrote:
    “Now I share your hatred of liberals and agree that it’s a bit rich for them to condemn Harper’s abuse of parliamentary power, but that doesn’t make it right to stack the Senate (especially with people who just three weeks ago were rejected by their constituents) and it does make Harper a hypocrite. Again!”
    No, it does not. Like it or not, right now the rules are that Senators are appointed by the PM. The hypocrites are those who opposed any moves toward Senate reform, but then when Harper uses the system THAT THEY WANT, they cry foul. That my friend is known as hypocritical bullshit!
    I want Harper to reform the Senate. But if there are going to be elections, I would just as soon star out with as many conservative incumbents as possible.

  26. For two decades the Media Elites believed they were the voice of Canadians, and now it’s finally starting to hit the liberal twits that they don’t speak for the people of this nation. The Liberal shrill media represent the progressive/regressive leftards, they exclude the rest of our opinions and in the end it’s going to financially ruin Liberal Media.

  28. amos – thanks for the link. I took a very quick and I mean quick read-through of it. I didn’t get the sense that Harper was talking about reforming the federal election system to one of either ‘run-off’, ‘preferential ballot’ or ‘mixed-member proportional system’, (or joint nomination meetings) all of which are mentioned in the article by Flanagan and Harper.
    I understood their focus to be on dealing with the problem of what had become an essentially one-party nation – governed by the Liberals. The problem was how to unite the conservative vote (called the Three Sisters in the article), which was divided by the PCs and the Reform. The electoral reform would be among these two parties if I understand it correctly.
    Moot points, however, as Harper, to his great credit and unacknowledged by the sophist coffee shop chatterers of our national media – united these disparate conservative forces..and won his majority. Reducing the Liberals, who had degenerated into governing-because-they-could rather than by virtue of policies and programmes, to irrelevance.

  29. Robert L >
    “When someone goes FULL RETARD does that mean they can be considered crazy or just mentally handicapped?”
    Pinapple Express – “Never go full Retard, never”

  30. You are a nasty piece of work Bill Stewart. Childish or depressing or both? You are the type who tries to pit honorable people against each other to make both parties feel a little foolish. Your tacit approval/disapproval means squat here because you have no recognized credentials to enable you to pass judgements with credibility. You are in the same category as the msm! heh.

  31. Let us see now.
    Why is it that those who are elected leaders, just after winning the elections, being able to form government, they start off stupid. Harper made a major error, even if you don’t agree, by appointing losers to the senate. He could easily find or should have had in mind a number of people to appoint without any damage.
    Harper will get by on this, nonetheless it was an error.
    While all of this is true, it is also true that Harper followed the law, those that exclaim loudly, do that from a position of a loser. If Layton does not like that he can change the law. On the other hand, he can’t, he is just a pipsqueak that can jump and squeak all day long and nobody has to listen to him, in the big scheme of things he is irrelevant nobody.
    There are people even here that get impressed by his squeak, though it is just a cheap talk.
    The “journalist” of the “newspaper” of the communist/socialist aristocracy is really imaginative and it seems, often, she thinks that her dreams are a reality. What can one say?
    The “journalist” Ottawa paper is complaining to no end about the appointments, which were done according to the law.
    Remember that Harper wanted to change the law. As it was in minority he could not do it. We will see what he does in majority.
    Harper seem to get these things done in a kind of slow motion, lightness of being, as though things will fall in the right place, viz the sidetracked carbon trading fraud, even telling the WWF at their meeting.
    Appointing losers to senat positions is bad policy. End of story.

  33. IT’S OFFICIAL THE THRASHERS ARE MOVING TO WINNIPEG.
    THEY BETTER BE CALLED THE JET’S!!!!!

  35. “Like it or not, right now the rules are that Senators are appointed by the PM. The hypocrites are those who opposed any moves toward Senate reform, but then when Harper uses the system THAT THEY WANT, they cry foul.” – Karl (6:24)
    Verily.

  36. PM Stephen Harper has Preston Manning on one shoulder wispering what to do, and Brian Mulroney on the other wispering what to do.
    The Reform in Harper will begin to assert itself.
    I’m confident a tempered Manning will emerge!

  37. I have no problem with the senate appointments as long as the senate gets reformed ASAP.

  38. Thanks for the Harper-Israel link, dmorris. Too bad the Glib and Pale editorial that’s an associated link has the Glib calling for the Israelis to put the yellow stars back on in the name of peace.

  39. ET
    Regarding the squirrels and raccoons…they are not socialists but dumb animals with an acute sense of smell…that is massively offended by the smell of mothballs.
    Yes that’s right mothballs repell such critters like magic…no inconvenient bodies to dispose of—no rude noises—no moving parts…nothing to pinch, scrape or scratch you.
    If only mothballs worked so well on socialists…

  40. sasquatch, I second that: we put out mothballs until our bedding plants are well established. Yes, the backyard doesn’t smell as nice as we’d like, but—there are NO Raccoons wreaking havoc. And they must have a little tom-tom system because, even after we remove the mothballs—they shrink!—the raccoons seem to give our space a wide berth. (Or maybe it’s because they can smell the residue, which we can’t.) Yes, they’re cute looking, but I HATE raccoons.

  42. welcome back ET, was starting to wonder at your absense
    and as sasquatch said moth balls, or some emonia, works just as well, and you don’t have to feed either, like you would a dog:-)))

  43. •The Red Star’s Heather Malice imagining Harper supporters “leaving creepy packages on [her] doorstep in the dead of night”
    It boggles the mind to think of the creativity required to create a ‘creepy package’ that could rival the one on the other side of the door.

  44. I must admit it was me, I left the creepy package on the doorstep. I never thought a makeup kit and a mirror were considered creepy to a woman, but when your the only woman on earth that gets out of bed and obviously intentionally, tries to look uglier, well sorry Ms. Mallice.

  45. “whose ‘minds’ operate solely within the cloud-level of words, words and more words. Words connected to other words. But – Unconnected to hard data, facts and the basics of reality.” ET
    That is the pure truth! wish I had said that.. At one time it was considered normal to always “speak truth to power”, but today nobody knows what truth is…It’s mindless drivel by chattering squirrels..

  47. Good for you, ET, and good-bye, raccoons!
    I just wish we had some lefty-repellent that was so cheap, easy, and effective!

  48. Mallick used to be pleasantly weird, but that article was incoherent. I read it three times, and the only thing I got from it is that that woman is clearly headed for a nervous breakdown.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation