Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Designer candidate Danielle Smith should worry drifting Alberta Tories | Main | Lament for the Rags »

Thursday, April 30, 2009

In the Hot Room Tonight: Immigration

Hotroom-specialtemplate

Listen live by clicking right here. Right now.

Immigration policy will be on the front-burner of the Hot Room tonight. We will be joined by Kathy Shaidle, author and blogger, and Renee Stephen, former NDP candidate for Kingston.

We'll be taking your calls and we'll be streaming right here, from the Shotgun Blog.

Posted by Mike Brock on April 30, 2009 in WS Radio | Permalink

Comments

Your Better, you have just got to be either Mike or Kathy in disguise promoting their radio program. There is just no other answer for this absolutely great entertainment shtick.

In the outside chance this is not case, I hope you get paid well in any case. Now I just have to listen.

Posted by: Jim R | 2009-04-30 8:08:21 PM


Sorry Charlie, I know you're a fellow Northerner and all, but this inside joke has gone on long enough.

Yes, I am told 'Kathy Shaidle' is the pseudonym of well-known Catholic leftist and NDP activist - actually, the party's MP for Timmins - Charlie Angus. I heard it began as an inside joke at Catholic New Times, back when Charlie was living in Toronto, before he returned North and CNT stopped its print edition.

The joke grew when Jack was elected NDP leader and replaced union influence with identity politics.

Tyranny of Nice was actually written during the opening week of bear season last August, over a couple of beers in a pop-up trailer behind Capreol, after locking our rifles in the Dodge pickup for the evening.

Posted by: Pete Vere | 2009-04-30 8:10:51 PM


P.S. I should add that the person who plays Kathy Shaidle at public functions is in reality an experimental fitness instructor and full-contact origami coach from Svalbard, who immigrated to Toronto for its warm climate.

Posted by: Pete Vere | 2009-04-30 8:13:57 PM


"I denounce open immigration all the time"

Still waiting to see these post"s" by Kathy criticizing open immigration, though at this point I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: Your Better | 2009-04-30 9:38:00 PM


YB: It would be easier if you told us why it is that you are so convinced of these things you're saying. Why not just tell us WHY you think Kathy never opposed XYZ, or WHY it is that all of these people are claiming she did when it is supposedly so obvious that she never did? Is it supposed to somehow goad someone into saying something that can be somehow construed as anti-semitic (if you're a troll), or because you clicked the wrong link or something and are intent on defending your misaprehension to the death (a possibility I'm willing to consider since I've actually had days like that myself)? If it is the latter, then go ahead and actually DEFEND what you're saying, don't just keep repeating it over and over.

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-04-30 10:31:51 PM


Anyway, here are the URLs of more than zero of the posts from Kathy's blog:

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-07-0000/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-08-0004/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-06-0001/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-11-0000/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-05-0004/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-08-0001/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-13-0001/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-14-0010/

http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2009-01-27-0003/

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-04-30 10:32:37 PM


Um, thanks, Dave from "gaycelebritycrap.blogspot.com" :-), but I've read each of those posts, nothing there about open immigration.

I might have missed it though; can you post an excerpt of one of these alleged criticism"s" - that don't exist, by the way - right here on the this blog? No? Why not? Because you just posted random urls from Kathy's blog having nothing to do with open immigration? Wow, you're an even bigger bullshitter than she is!

"Why not just tell us WHY you think Kathy never opposed XYZ, or WHY..."

*Sigh* It doesn't work that way in the het community, sweetie. I asked a very, very simple question, and have yet to receive an answer. I've done quite enough typing in this thread, time for someone to produce the goods.

Nekkid pics of my girlfriend seem an insufficient inducement here; would nekkid pics of me close the deal? I'll do it, I swear I'll do it if someone produces these post"s" that don't exist where Kathy criticizes open immigration.

Posted by: Your Better | 2009-04-30 11:10:58 PM


I left a short post here this morning expressing my thoughts on immigration. Stopped by tonight to see what others had to say. All I can say now is WOW! I will not be posting here again in fact I probably will not be back to the site after seeing what passes for a discussion here.

Posted by: Bob Devine | 2009-05-01 1:12:13 AM


Bob, stick around and help us raise the bar.

Thoughtful commenters like you can crowd out those who are only around to be obnoxious.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-01 2:11:04 AM


I hope you come back as well, Bob. I'm often embarrassed to see some of these comments, but you can only be so harsh and heavy-handed in a forum like this.

What we need are more thoughtful and civil people posting comments. Or, put differently, a few commenters could be more thoughtful and civil.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-01 6:25:35 AM


"What we need are more thoughtful and civil people posting comments. Or, put differently, a few commenters could be more thoughtful and civil."

I've contributed more on topic data to this thread than anyone else. I'm pretty much the expert here on immigration, *Canadian* immigration, because I've done a lot of my own research on the matter. That needs to count for something dude.

Bob Devine's narrative was simply wrong, as others have pointed out, we don't "need" such a high level of immigration.

Civility is a two way street and the WS gang is as uncivil a group as I've encountered. You're outright vicious towards conservatives and towards Christians; that calls for fierce retaliation. Blantant, in-your-face dishonesty is considered extremely uncivil in my demographic cohort, and I find the WS gang to be systemically and chronically dishonest. The snark is an issue too, we don't like that either.

I'm a perfectly civil fellow when you aren't attacking my friends and family, or when leftist gay militant open immigration supporters aren't presenting themselves as conservatives. I regret somewhat having to be so forceful, but what would you like me to say when your own staff says stuff like this:

"I'm sure it's a very, um, conservative hand, well-designed (by Jesus) for smashing homos and immigrants."

That's pretty nasty even by my standards. The Standard attacks conservatives and Christians on a daily basis, often viciously; don't be surprised if that rubs some people the wrong way and they reply in kind.

Posted by: Your Better | 2009-05-01 10:04:24 AM


Your Better: None of the WS bloggers begin with snark, nor do they begin with hostility (criticism is not the same thing as hostility).

Responding to snark in kind, or responding in a similar tone is, in my mind, different from beginning a discussion with a certain tone.

I think we can all be a lot more civil. Feel free to offer criticism.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2009-05-01 10:20:03 AM


"Your Better: None of the WS bloggers begin with snark, nor do they begin with hostility (criticism is not the same thing as hostility)."

I'll have to insist that is spectacularly false, so false in fact as to constitute an act of aggression. We're done here.

Posted by: Your Better | 2009-05-01 10:31:59 AM


Bob, you should take note of the fact that there is really only one obnoxious poster here, who has effectively monopolized the entire conversation: Your Better. I do not have editorial privileges, but if I did, I would have banned him very early on in the thread for scoring two-bazillion on the troll-o-meter.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-01 11:04:59 AM


I could live a thousand lives and still not ever summon the hatred you harbour for Christians and conservatives Brock. To call you a troll is somewhat defamatory to the under bridge dwelling people. I post data, lots of it; you don't, neither does Bob, neither does anyone else.

The word troll needs to mean more than some guy who is kicking my ass in debate. I'll cop to incendiary, but not obnoxious, I'm here to talk policy, not to make friends. You folks here at WS have a habit of taking vicious shots and then crying "civility!" or "troll" when someone retaliates.

Still waiting to see these post"s" of Kathy's where she denounces open immigration. I am now offering nude pics of me, my girlfriend, and my neighbour as a bounty. I might as well also offer a gazillion dollars too because it's not like those posts exist.

Posted by: Your Better | 2009-05-01 11:25:31 AM


Why is it that Your Better is the only one who has a right to demand answers? Is that just how it works on the het? YB asserts something and that makes it true?

I didn't cut and paste those posts here because I'm not sure that would be welcome, and I fail to see how it would be any harder for you to misconstrue them here rather than there.

YB ought to be offered a few more chances to answer questions, and then, after he refuses to answer any questions, he should be banned.

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-05-01 12:37:17 PM


"....YB ought to be offered a few more chances to answer questions, and then, after he refuses to answer any questions, he should be banned ...""
.............................................doth sayeth Dave Em

BANNED? why don't you just tell his Mother and be don with it??
immediately after your recomendations for reform & final ultimatum,
- think about that one, while the teacher is out of the room

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 12:53:08 PM


If he continues to refuse to answer questions, while continuously demanding that everyone else answer his, and then asserting that they haven't after they have, and not telling us if that's because a post dosn't count as a denunciation of open immigration dosn't unless it is worded "I, (your name) hearby denounce open immigration", then why shouldn't he be assumed to be a true troll, and kicked out? If he's a true troll, he's misrepresenting himself and Kathy, in order to provoke a reaction from somebody here that will then itself be misrepresented as racist or something. Is WS obligated provide a free forum for misrepresentation, and not allowed to ask anything in return? Is that just the way it is on the het?

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-05-01 1:15:25 PM


what's a true troll? please, that has not yet been resolved...\We suspect Troll means difference of opinion, minus niceness..
as for credibility slippage, be glad you are a better more well rounded valid person..

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 1:44:17 PM


I just defined it in my last post, retard. A lot of bloggers use use it to mean anyone in comments who isn't a yes man, so I charitably provided a simple description of what true trolls, as opposed to mere non-yesmen, act like.

In your You Better persona, you keep saying that answering questions is such a simple matter. If that is the case, then it shouldn't be to much to ask that YB answer questions, if he is not just here to goad people into saying something he can take out of context elsewhere.

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-05-01 1:50:49 PM


"... In your You Better persona..."
We assure you, we are not " Your Better"
or anyone else pretending to be someone else

We are a three digit number, like God made us

".. If he's a true troll, he's misrepresenting himself and Kathy, in order to provoke a reaction from somebody here that will then itself be misrepresented as racist or something..."

or something

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 2:34:33 PM


"...Still waiting to see these post"s" of Kathy's where she denounces open immigration. I am now offering nude pics of me, my girlfriend, and my neighbour as a bounty..."

This is interesting - who's your neighbour?
We can get pix of you or your G/F easy enough

--------advertisement-----------

psst!hy buddy, better than fake Viagara or waterboarding

< nakedbloggers.com >

< naked something.com>

< nakedimmigrants.com>

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 2:41:30 PM


nearly forgot---

< nakedretards.com>

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 2:43:35 PM


OK, as long as you assure me, that must make it true. If it says 419 or Your Better next to it, it's an axiomatic truth in need of no support, if it says anything else, then it somehow dosen't say what it said, or is a lie. That's just how the het works!

Posted by: Dave M | 2009-05-01 3:20:57 PM



We are standing by the keyboard
with our hands over our hearts--
about to pour cups of crocodile blood into the Nile
by the light of sacred eternal fire
as Pharoh himself
tapes us for YouTube *( qv )

that's as good as we can do.
its either the truth or it isn't
and this is, we assure you, the truth

-----advertisement------

stubborn stains?
grease spots?
pet hairs?

try Axiomatic for 30 days and see the difference
its self evident - why say more ?

Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-01 4:48:11 PM


For pete's sake, drop the banhammer on the moby and his potted plant.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth | 2009-05-03 5:23:51 PM


Just another day in the Western Cesspool.

Posted by: Liberal | 2009-05-04 7:46:53 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.