Tories release first attack ad against Mulcair

[CDNBear]

Well maybe, but in reality financial, etc decisions are affected by emotional considerations.

Hence a lot of the problems with the outcome of some of those decisions(1).

I disagree, ideals are balanced against reality all the time.

I see little evidence of that around here.

Ideals need to be held above and worked towards in spite of peoples perceptions of reality.

Perception of reality? It is either reality, or delusion.

I thought that your comments concerning mentalfloss were a contention.

Two separate paragraphs, replying to two different posts, on two different topics?

Realism would be only a portion of wisdom. Wisdom, includes emotion, realism, and ideals.

Wisdom is formulated by many things. Allowing emotion, or ideals driven by emotion to be primary factors, is not beneficial. See (1).

Do you, so do you laugh a lot at Harper?

Not always specifically, unless we're talking about cardigans and plastic hair. Why? Are you trying to pigeon hole me as a Conservative shill too?

That is a different kind of reaction. As I mentioned in my last post we "vote for politicians to start out with, and give them personnel, all our taxes, I'll say that again, all our taxes, the bureaucracy, and the courts. I don't think it is too much to expect honesty, sincerity, and a bit of hard work for the perks they get that the rest of us just pay for." It should be all towards something more than a laugh at the end of it.

You can say it again, but it's irrelevant to what I find humourous, in what you said and to whom you said it.

 

[beaker]

Hence a lot of the problems with the outcome of some of those decisions(1).

True, and also a lot of the good things that came out of those decisions.

I see little evidence of that around here.

Really? if they weren't reality would be a lot more idealistic.

Perception of reality? It is either reality, or delusion.

I feel fairly certain that what we each see as reality is somewhat different. Therefore perceptions of reality are what we work with and ideals are what we work towards.

Two separate paragraphs, replying to two different posts, on two different topics?

Following back through the post points it looked like it to me.

Wisdom is formulated by many things. Allowing emotion, or ideals driven by emotion to be primary factors, is not beneficial. See (1).

Sure, but see my response to (1), And then there is financial ideals and scientific ideals, which are affected by emotion. Reality is going to be the mix of all the results. Don't sell emotions short, even if you are emotionally challenged you can benefit fromother people emotional surplus.

Not always specifically, unless we're talking about cardigans and plastic hair. Why? Are you trying to pigeon hole me as a Conservative shill too?

Not particularily, You were saying that you find hypocrisy humourous and of course in Canada the first example of hypocrisy is our beloved Prime Minister. If you don't find that hypocrisy funny perhaps you have limits to your funny bone, which doesn't necessarily make you a conservative shill.

You can say it again, but it's irrelevant to what I find humourous, in what you said and to whom you said it.

OK, I will, it seems to be a difficult point and needs clarification. "As I mentioned in my last post we "vote for politicians to start out with, and give them personnel, all our taxes, I'll say that again, all our taxes, the bureaucracy, and the courts. I don't think it is too much to expect honesty, sincerity, and a bit of hard work for the perks they get that the rest of us just pay for." It should be all towards something more than a laugh at the end of it." So then, I was pointing out that I don't find hypocrisy amusing, as compared to you, so it would appear to be relevant.

 

[petros]

And here I thought govt decision were made for the long term of 20+ years.

It's not a ****ing seesaw ride folks.

 

[CDNBear]

True, and also a lot of the good things that came out of those decisions.

I would suspect by accident or amendment, by cooler heads. Hence the use of the word some.

Really?

Yes.

I feel fairly certain that what we each see as reality is somewhat different.

That's self evident.

Following back through the post points it looked like it to me.

Funny you should say that. Since the reality of it, is quite different.

Sure, but see my response to (1), And then there is financial ideals and scientific ideals, which are affected by emotion.

The two areas, that should be least affected by emotion, for pure reason alone, are the two you seem focused on.

Not particularily, You were saying that you find hypocrisy humourous and of course in Canada the first example of hypocrisy is our beloved Prime Minister.

Hence "Not always specifically".

OK, I will, it seems to be a difficult point and needs clarification.

It's not a difficult point and needs no clarification, on my end anyways. It has nothing to do with the humour in what you said and to whom you said it. Lets not lose sight and try to expand on something to avoid the obvious.

 

[beaker]

And here I thought govt decision were made for the long term of 20+ years.

It's not a ****ing seesaw ride folks.

See, now there is a different perception of reality.

 

[petros]

How do you think it is done? A complete different course of direction every 4 years?

 

[beaker]

I would suspect by accident or amendment, by cooler heads. Hence the use of the word some.

Even an accidental benefit from an emotional input to a decision is still a benefit. And I know of a variety of instances where emotional input was intentional and had the desired beneficial effect.

Yes.

Ok so a lot of careful thought went into that response, or at least enough to decide not to respond to the whole point.

That's self evident.

Evident anyway. and also evident is your decision not to address the point raised. I take it you like a quick response over one that has actual meaning.

Funny you should say that. Since the reality of it, is quite different.

Or at least your perception of it.

The two areas, that should be least affected by emotion, for pure reason alone, are the two you seem focused on.

I guess you mean that as an ideal, which you don't think has value because ideals are affected by emotion. Almost a paradox there, Eh?

It's not a difficult point and needs no clarification, on my end anyways. It has nothing to do with the humour in what you said and to whom you said it. Lets not lose sight and try to expand on something to avoid the obvious.

You said in relation to my reply to mentalfloss that you think hypocrisy funny. Therefore my comments are very much relevant. I was giving you the opportunity to discover the depths of your funny feelings about hypocrisy.

How do you think it is done? A complete different course of direction every 4 years?

It would be my impression that there are a variety of small changes, small beng a relative description depending on the size of the government, its individual departments, the intelligence of the Minister, the determination of the bureaucracy, minute fluctuations in the currency, the price of rice in China, and the length of the leash held by the prime minister.

 

[CDNBear]

Even an accidental benefit from an emotional input to a decision is still a benefit. And I know of a variety of instances where emotional input was intentional and had the desired beneficial effect.

Are you having difficulty understanding the word some?

Ok so a lot of careful thought went into that response, or at least enough to decide not to respond to the whole point.

Because the rest of the applicable commentary, was incoherent fluff.
.

Evident anyway.

No, it's self evident.

and also evident is your decision not to address the point raised.

Why would I argue or address what I obviously agree with?

I take it you like a quick response over one that has actual meaning.

My response had meaning. I stated clearly that your comment "I feel fairly certain that what we each see as reality is somewhat different.", was self evident. Why would I have to write a book to address that?

Or at least your perception of it.

No, it was two separate replies, to two separate posts, separated by two paragraphs, on two different topics.

There's no other way to perceive that, unless you ignore reality.

I guess you mean that as an ideal, which you don't think has value because ideals are affected by emotion. Almost a paradox there, Eh?

No, you guess wrong.

You said in relation to my reply to mentalfloss that you think hypocrisy funny.

I'm aware of what I said.

 

[taxslave]

And here I thought govt decision were made for the long term of 20+ years.

It's not a ****ing seesaw ride folks.

You thought wrong.

 

[beaker]

Are you having difficulty understanding the word some?

Because the rest of the applicable commentary, was incoherent fluff.
.
No, it's self evident.

Why would I argue or address what I obviously agree with?

My response had meaning. I stated clearly that your comment "I feel fairly certain that what we each see as reality is somewhat different.", was self evident. Why would I have to write a book to address that?

No, it was two separate replies, to two separate posts, separated by two paragraphs, on two different topics.

There's no other way to perceive that, unless you ignore reality.

No, you guess wrong.

I'm aware of what I said.

Reading your post I dispute whether you are aware, of what you said, what I said, or what anybody else is saying here. When you decide to be something more than a Cannibal troll affiliate I would be happy to discuss some of the issues with you.

 

[CDNBear]

Reading your post I dispute whether you are aware, of what you said, what I said, or what anybody else is saying here. When you decide to be something more than a Cannibal troll affiliate I would be happy to discuss some of the issues with you.

If you aren't able to formulate a reasoned reply, just say so, or don't say anything at all, the choice is essentially yours.

But there's no need to fabricate nonsensical excuses.

 

[beaker]

If you aren't able to formulate a reasoned reply, just say so, or don't say anything at all, the choice is essentially yours.

But there's no need to fabricate nonsensical excuses.

I wouldn't fabricate the notion that you identify yourself as a troll. Or that you then proceed to behave like one. I don't need to. The evidence is in your profile, and in your posts. Nothing more need be said.

 

[CDNBear]

I wouldn't fabricate the notion that you identify yourself as a troll.

Correction, Cannibal Troll.

Or that you then proceed to behave like one.

I've done no such thing while conversing with you.

I don't need to.

The evidence would indicate otherwise.

The evidence is in your profile, and in your posts.

You've read all my posts?

Nothing more need be said.

I already advised you of that. You chose to continue making baseless accusations, because you couldn't formulate a reasoned reply.

Your reaction is quite telling.

 

[beaker]

Correction, Cannibal Troll.

I've done no such thing while conversing with you.

The evidence would indicate otherwise.

You've read all my posts?

I already advised you of that. You chose to continue making baseless accusations, because you couldn't formulate a reasoned reply.

Your reaction is quite telling.

My reaction isn't telling you anything other than that I recognize a Troll and the type of behaviour exhibited. Like I said If you change your baseless trolling I would be happy to havea discussion with you.

 

[Goober]

Meanwhile- The train was bearing down fast on Martha who had been tied to the tracks by scoundrels- No sound- This is a silent movie.

 

[CDNBear]

My reaction isn't telling you anything other than that I recognize a Troll and the type of behaviour exhibited. Like I said If you change your baseless trolling I would be happy to havea discussion with you.

And we came right back to...

I feel fairly certain that what we each see as reality is somewhat different.

That's self evident.

Reality is, you ignored the context of or words contained in, some of my statements, or observations, to what end? Who knows.

When this was pointed out, repeatedly, you chose to, for reasons one can only postulate, just start making baseless accusations. In a derogatory manner, to make it seem as if I'm some sort of bad guy. When the facts simply do not support such a position.

Meanwhile- The train was bearing down fast on Martha who had been tied to the tracks by scoundrels- No sound- This is a silent movie.

I very much prefer the talkies.

 

[beaker]

And we came right back to...

That's self evident.

Reality is, you ignored the context of or words contained in, some of my statements, or observations, to what end? Who knows.

When this was pointed out, repeatedly, you chose to, for reasons one can only postulate, just start making baseless accusations. In a derogatory manner, to make it seem as if I'm some sort of bad guy. When the facts simply do not support such a position.

I very much prefer the talkies.

Wow, the pot calling the kettle black, except that in this case the kettle is aluminum electric. But keep working at it, and when you leave Trolldom behind, I would be happy to have a discussion with you.

 

[CDNBear]

Wow, the pot calling the kettle black, except that in this case the kettle is aluminum electric.

Can you back that up with exact quotes, and how you interpreted them?

But keep working at it, and when you leave Trolldom behind, I would be happy to have a discussion with you.

I highly doubt that, you don't seem to enjoy reality. Unless of course you accept and make a case for the challenge I presented you.

 

[beaker]

Can you back that up with exact quotes, and how you interpreted them?

I highly doubt that, you don't seem to enjoy reality. Unless of course you accept and make a case for the challenge I presented you.

No need for me to do that, it is all in the last couple of pages. Of course you could be editting your previous comments, but that isn't important to me. I know you for a Troll and that is all that matters to me. Should I see that you are reforming yourself I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

 

[CDNBear]

No need for me to do that, it is all in the last couple of pages. Of course you could be editting your previous comments, but that isn't important to me. I know you for a Troll and that is all that matters to me. Should I see that you are reforming yourself I will be happy to have a discussion with you.

Thank you for proving me correct.