But then what is it's purpose? I know those on the "left" side of the spectrum like to redefine terminology and words every time they begin to trip on their own words. This somehow allows them an "out" from the proverbial corner they just painted themselves in to. Either the terminology is minimized, redefined, or dismissed all together.
I have decided that is NOT how I am going to play the game. Words have definition for a reason. So we know what the (Bleep!) the other person is trying to say. Let me elaborate my point. Today's word is a very offensive word. But that is not what matters. What matters is this...is the word applicable? That word is "Whore".
Whore as defined in the English language is as follows:
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Now let's look at the following true story in Canadian politics. Her name is Belinda Stronach. She has been referred to as a whore. Is the term justified?
After a failed leadership bid for the conservative party (most likely because she was a rookie MP) an inexperienced Belinda decided that she wanted to have it all in politics. As a spoiled little rich girl who was used to getting whatever she wanted, losing the leadership bid to Stephen Harper was too much. She had designs on being a somebody in politics. To the point of compromising who she claimed to be. On May 17, 2004, Belinda "crossed" the floor over to the Liberal party. What's the big deal you might ask? Timing! This was the day of a crucial budget vote. Budget votes, when lost by the reigning party in power, bring the house down. This is considered a vote of non-confidence and the government in power must now call for an election because in it's current state it cannot do business in the house without the support of the opposition parties.
The 2004 budget would have brought down the governemnt. Except Belinda crossed the floor that day and voted with the Liberals. She blabbered about her "moral" reasons but it seemed rather questionable that the moment she crossed the floor she was handed a very lucrative Cabinet position. Usually these positions are reserved for those with expeirence and are known for their loyalty to the party. Belinda had neither and then serving Prime Minister Paul Maritn was desperate to cling to power. So he dangled a a carrot in front of her. Essentially he bought her vote. Under the term "Whore" Belinda fit both 1 &3. 1 because she was "paid" off for her actions and 3 because she was willingly to compromise her principals for personal gain. If you will she was a "political whore" of sorts.
But the definition does not just end there. This past year she has been relationally (IE sexually) linked to NHL hockey player Tie Domi. I guess that would not be such a big deal EXCEPT Tie Domi is married and it is not to Belinda.
Speculation does cross one's mind when rumors start to fly and I will usually dismiss them but there were some factors that contributed to the reality of this relationship. One, neither of them denied it. . Two, Tie Domi's wife discovered recently that when he was supposedly with his team on a few occasions he was actually in New York or Calgary with Belinda. Three, Oh Yeah! The photograph taken of Tie with Belinda in public areas confirming these (ahem!) stories.
Aside from Belinda's adulterous relationship with Tie Domi she has also been known to "other" men in the House of commons. Peter Mackay for example. At this rate, Belinda also qualifies for definition number two when applying the word whore. So let's not minimize reality by mincing words because we are supposed to be sensitive towards those who incapable of displaying the same quality.
Her actions speak loud and clear of who she is and how she lives. I always say "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...then it's a DUCK!"
Belinda...your a whore!
Until next time...
38 comments:
Very well said TIO.
That woman certainly sounds like some sort of harlot to me.
Thanks Courtney. Somebody had to say it! It's not like I am often accused of "tolerant" views. ;)
Ummm....OK
Glad you got that off your chest.
Feel better now?
So what? This sets her apart from the other politicians...how?
And, BTW, you just called Christ a whore:
"As you do to the least of these my brethren, so you do unto Me."
And on design
If a can of paint gets spilled on the floor, it makes a design. Who's the designer?
Karen,
The point of this is dealing with terminology more then anything.
For example, if I preach against the evils of promiscuity while I am sleeping around on my wife I would get labelled as a hypocrite and justifiably so.
There was nothing here I felt I was getting off my chest as you say.
"And, BTW, you just called Christ a whore:
"As you do to the least of these my brethren, so you do unto Me."
No I did not and I resent the implication. The scripture references "Brothers/sisters". Belinda makes no claim to being a follower of Christ.
Secondley, there is no "judgment" in my statements. They are not based on hypothetical specualtion but on actual admission and observation. That which Belinda did not deny.
I pointed out the true definition of a word and how it applies in this circumstance.
I have to go to work now. I have a more of a response but it will have to come later.
Karen,
I see you’re up to your usual tricks:
“If a can of paint gets spilled on the floor, it makes a design. Who's the designer?”
This is an ‘over-stupification’ of design arguments. If a can of paint spills it may make a pattern, the pattern may even be complex and intricate, but it would not indicate intentionality or specificity. However, if you walked into the room and found paint on the floor that spelled out “Karen is beautiful” then you would obviously know that it wasn’t an accidental spill. You would know it was intentionally put there because it not only has complexity but specificity and intelligibility. You would not conclude that the laws of nature naturally selected the complex chemical materials to form a proposition as such. Moreover, you would not know “Who” necessarily wrote the message, but you would know it was written by someone.
TIO,
Well said in the post my friend.
Beowulf
Since you are smarter than I, I will take your word on the ‘over-stupification’ bit. As for usual tricks, you are, as usual endowing my thought process with more than it holds.
I don't really have the where-withall to employ tricks in this arena.
A butterfly that evolves to where it has a large spot looking like a predator's eye on it's wing, or a lizard that can change it's colors to camoflage itself within the scenery does not imply a designer. If it did, then the designer would have given all the butterflies such spots and all creatures camoflaging capabilities. There wouldn't be evidence of mutation; species would have appeared at first as they are now, with no need for change and adaptation.
TIO
The point of this is dealing with terminology more then anything.
It seemed so at first. Then you switched to presenting an argument that would allow you to "reasonably" call someone a whore.
I got the impression you had a bug up your butt about this woman.
No I did not and I resent the implication. The scripture references "Brothers/sisters". Belinda makes no claim to being a follower of Christ.
Does she make any claim of NOT being a follower? Surely you cannot make that assumption just based on her actions. She can be forgiven for them, afterall. Not by you, apparently.
And are you positive Christ only saw as his brothers and sisters those who believed in him? What did he mean by "the least of these"?
Karen:
“ If it did, then the designer would have given all the butterflies such spots and all creatures camoflaging capabilities.
That’s a bit of s jump don’t you think? To say a designer makes something one way, he must make them *all* that way is just a un-support assertion.
“There wouldn't be evidence of mutation; species would have appeared at first as they are now, with no need for change and adaptation.”
This in another blind leap. It is certainly possibly that a designer could Front-Load organisms with the future in mind, or something similar. Unquestionably, this could have been done to produce evolution (though I don’t think so) and the original design could have influenced the course of ebolution. BTW, What Have Butterflies Got to Do with Darwin?
Take care
Beowulf
That’s a bit of s jump don’t you think? To say a designer makes something one way, he must make them *all* that way is just a un-support assertion.
Yep. It was hyperbole, actually. Guess I am a little tricky after all. It was actually a delayed response to something I read somewhere else about gawd and evolution; the details escape me now.
Sorry about that.
What Have Butterflies Got to Do with Darwin was cute. A cranky butterfly pinner, angry with the constant voice of evolution speaking up. I know how he feels every time I go to a motel and find the Gideons have been there first.
you take care too, hon.
Hehe, I like you Karen. ;-)
beowulf
I like you too, Bubbala. I'm glad we can argue, but still be friendly. :)
ITO:
Otherwise it is a clear misuse of the word. They like to accuse you of "haggling" or "quibbling" over terminology.
Well, here, from http://www.answers.com/dictionary:
"The popular American attitude of the 19th cent. toward dictionaries gave them a nearly sacred authority, but in the 20th cent. the dictionary makers themselves began to replace notions of purity (especially based on etymology) by criteria of use, somewhat ahead of analogous developments in grammar. Because of the unprecedented scientific advances of the 20th cent., many scientific terms have come into popular use and consequently have increased the size of general dictionaries."
Or, to quote Samuel Johnson:
"Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to be quite true." - Samuel Johnson
So 1st off, no, never painted myself into a corner (if that's what you were referring to), & 2nd, meanings aren't fixed because language is fluid & changing. You might even say, it was designed to be that way. Don't get all lathered up over that: the only designer is Man. No divine ladle stirring the pot - mechanisms designed themselves.
Strange that you called that lady a...ho. A carny said to me, maybe 30 yrs ago: "Your mama's a whore." I looked at him. "Hey," he said, "So's mine. So's his. So are we all. Think about it: you sell yourself, you provide a service. Everybody's a whore."
It's a dark comparison, to be sure. Subtract the sexuality side from it, and think about it.
Karen,
Alright back to you darlin'.
"If a can of paint gets spilled on the floor, it makes a design. Who's the designer?"
That's easy. The one who spilled the paint!
"So what? This sets her apart from the other politicians...how?"
First off, your generalizing. I am not naive enough to believe that Belinda is the ONLY politician to compromise. She is just the latest which is why she gets the attention. Secondly, I do not accept that every politician is like this. We quite often hear about the 10 or 15 over the course of a year but we tend to forget the other few hundred who walk with integrity. Which may explain why they are backbenchers. :) Thirdly, she is not the only politician I have ever posted about and I am sure she will not be the last. However she is the first female one I have posted on.
"It seemed so at first. Then you switched to presenting an argument that would allow you to "reasonably" call someone a whore.
I got the impression you had a bug up your butt about this woman."
Reasonably? If the shoe fits....!!! I was not "looking" for a reason. I think I need to keep in mind that as an American you are most likely not in tune with Canadian politics, correct? So allow me to clarify. When these events not allegations began to unfold a number of Parlimanterians and some media outlets referenced to her as "political whore" for crossing the floor of the House and "Prostituting" herself to the Liberals for personal gain. Regarding the latest with her "affair" she was referenced as an "adulterous whore". Belinda did not like being referenced to as a whore. So I looked up the definition to establish whether everybody else was being mean spirited or if she was unwilling to face the reality of her choices that caused the public scrutiny.
She has never denied the events that took place (how could she, they were captured on film) but neither has she demonstrated any remorse to her constituents for betraying their vote in her as a conservative and not a liberal. Or her lack of remorse for a bedding another woman's husband. I determined by her actions based on observation and admission that the reference to her as whore was justified.
No I do not have a bug up my butt about her. She didn't like being called a whore. Fine then...stop acting like one. Remember Jim Baker in the 80's and his tax evasion/affair with his secretary? We did not get all soft on the guy and refer to him as a "Ladies man with some financial challenges". We called him what he was at that time. An "adulterating tax cheat!". His actions defined him as such. Belinda's actions do likewise. I do not refer to her as "whore" because of some personal grudge. You should know by now that I am not like that. I looked up the definition and it described her actions. Therefore I agreed with the assessment of others.
"Does she make any claim of NOT being a follower? Surely you cannot make that assumption just based on her actions. She can be forgiven for them, afterall. Not by you, apparently."
Well let's see. Everything she supports in government policy is contradictory of Christian values. She supports gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia. sells her self out to the highest bidder, and committs acts of adultery without any regrets. Again her actions speak loud and clear on that one.
What's with this forgiveness line of yours? She has not wronged me so I have nothing to forgive her of. Yes she can be forgiven of them by God but she has to ask Him first. I have nothing to do with that. Nor have I passed any judgement upon her. I made a statement based on observations of the facts and her own acknowledgement of them.
"And are you positive Christ only saw as his brothers and sisters those who believed in him? What did he mean by "the least of these"?"
We are heading down bunny trails here but because it is you I will indulge. He was referring to those who were "low" in social status. The overall context for this scripture is Christ telling about the final judgement which is why I was a little resentful about you taking the scripture out of it's context and trying to imply I would refer to my God in such a manner.
As a Christian, I visit the imprisoned, the sick and sometimes dieing in the hospital, I bring food (out of my own supply) to those who are without, I have given money out of my pocket to someone in need, invited strangers into my home, and clothed those who were lacking. The scriptural reference you spoke of was Christ at the final judgement when , oh here it is in it's entirety hopefully you get the point:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Matthew 25:31-46
KA,
I am off to bed for now. I will get back to you later in the day. Karen took up all my time this evening :)
TIO
First off, your generalizing. I am not naive enough to believe that Belinda is the ONLY politician to compromise. She is just the latest which is why she gets the attention.
Yes, I am generalizing. I believe ALL politicians compromise in some ways on their true stands on the issues. To not do so would leave them standing at the gate. So they are all, to some extent, whores. As KA points out WE are all, to some degree, whores.
Reasonably? If the shoe fits....!!! I was not "looking" for a reason. I think I need to keep in mind that as an American you are most likely not in tune with Canadian politics, correct? So allow me to clarify. When these events not allegations began to unfold a number of Parlimanterians and some media outlets referenced to her as "political whore" for crossing the floor of the House and "Prostituting" herself to the Liberals for personal gain. Regarding the latest with her "affair" she was referenced as an "adulterous whore". Belinda did not like being referenced to as a whore. So I looked up the definition to establish whether everybody else was being mean spirited or if she was unwilling to face the reality of her choices that caused the public scrutiny.
Without being aware of Canadian politics, I understood where you were going with what you presented in your argument about her being a political whore. But you didn't put any deleterious labels on PM Paul Martin for "whore mongering" for instance. Neither did you show any reference for
Belinda not liking being called a whore. Did she make a statement to that effect?
Well let's see. Everything she supports in government policy is contradictory of Christian values. She supports gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia. sells her self out to the highest bidder, and committs acts of adultery without any regrets. Again her actions speak loud and clear on that one.
You are still making assumptions. I know Christians who support gay marriage and abortion, who have commited adultery. Without regreat is another assumptio on your part. You do not know what is in her mind or her heart. You also do not deleteriously label her partner in adultery, only her. Double standard. Hmmm. Who is it that doesn't like double standards?
What's with this forgiveness line of yours? She has not wronged me so I have nothing to forgive her of. Yes she can be forgiven of them by God but she has to ask Him first. I have nothing to do with that. Nor have I passed any judgement upon her. I made a statement based on observations of the facts and her own acknowledgement of them.
Perhaps she has not wronged you; she has merely offended your sensibilities. I will accept that she was simply in the news and was good fodder for your tantalizing definition study for your post and that you have nothing personally against her. You needed a whore to put on the whipping post and you found one.
Whether you are simply applying a label that fits or agreeing with the mob, it still seems judgemental, since , as you said the word for the day is a "very offensive one". As a christian, is it your place to assign these labels?
As a Christian, I visit the imprisoned, the sick and sometimes dieing in the hospital, I bring food (out of my own supply) to those who are without, I have given money out of my pocket to someone in need, invited strangers into my home, and clothed those who were lacking. The scriptural reference you spoke of was Christ at the final judgement when , oh here it is in it's entirety hopefully you get the point:
Yes, I'm familiar with it, but thanks for the trip down memory lane. It's one of the few things from my bible training that I keep in mind as a guide for how to treat others. Like the song "What if God Was One of Us".
IF there was a god, it could be anybody. A homeless guy, a kid on the soccer field, George Bush, Belinda.
The "least" of these can mean more than the low class. It can mean those who would be put on the left side at the reckoning. Do you only do the things mentioned specifically by christ? Or do you extrapolate on it?Do you do things he wouldn't have said in those times? Change a tire? Jump someone's engine? Share an umbrella? Refrain from calling someone a whore on the internet?
Perhaps I should have also referenced "casting the first stone".
I really don't care if you call this woman a whore. It's just a word. If she can't handle it, she shouldn't be in politics, and she shouldn't be publicly sleeping around.
I was questioning your motives for the post and your fairness re: double standards and how all this fits with being a christian.
KA,
""The popular American attitude of the 19th cent. toward dictionaries gave them a nearly sacred authority, but in the 20th cent. the dictionary makers themselves began to replace notions of purity (especially based on etymology) by criteria of use, somewhat ahead of analogous developments in grammar. Because of the unprecedented scientific advances of the 20th cent., many scientific terms have come into popular use and consequently have increased the size of general dictionaries."
What does this have to do with the word "Whore"? The definition still stands, unless the liberals have redefined that as well :)
""Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to be quite true." - Samuel Johnson"
That is Sam's opinion. I recognize that you are referencing these sources to establish your point that terminology changes over time but it does not change the meaning of every single word. Most words stand the test of time and hold onto their true definition. We cannot possibly communicate as a human race if nobody really knows what the other is trying to say. Otherwise it becomes like gay marriage, it just confuses the whole thing. ;)
Whore defined (to date) has not changed. Applying the definitions to the actions substantiate the statement.
Besides I like it how Jesus put it. Let your "yes's be yes and your no's be no" That way there is no confusion.
"So 1st off, no, never painted myself into a corner (if that's what you were referring to),"
Hmmm took that a little personal did ya big guy? Actually that was a general statement based on similar scenarios I have come across on a sort of kinda regular basis.
" meanings aren't fixed because language is fluid & changing."
When liberals run the country it seems to change more frequently.
"You might even say, it was designed to be that way. Don't get all lathered up over that:"
More bunny trails. I will get you on this one another time.
"Strange that you called that lady a...ho."
It was not in a "Name calling" sort of way. I think you got the jist of my point in the article as you seem to read into the angle's I write from quite well. She was labeled. I looked up the current definition. According to her own acknowledgement, actions, and photographic evidence the term did in fact apply. She did not like it because it made her look bad. ????? That is probably why it is considered an ugly word. However it was used in it's correct form.
If I were to call her a whore "just because" then it is done with malicious intent and mean spiritedness and does not actually apply. It's like those idiots who call virgins who won't sleep with them "sluts". I certainly would like to believe Belinda would learn from some of her choices. I do not believe that she will be "labeled" like this forever. BTW I did not put the "label" on her. It was already there. I just agreed with it.
" Subtract the sexuality side from it, and think about it."
I believe I demonstrated that when I mentioned her sudden defection to the liberal party. I agree that there does always have to be a sexuality factor to apply. The definition has three ver4sions. I pointed out that all three apply in her case.
I don't know this lady but from your description, the term whore would seem to be justified.
ITO:
What does this have to do with the word "Whore"? The definition still stands, unless the liberals have redefined that as well :)
It had to do w/the comment about ‘quibbling’. Sorry, thought I was clear on that part. Had nothing to do w/the name calling.
That is Sam's opinion. I recognize that you are referencing these sources to establish your point that terminology changes over time but it does not change the meaning of every single word.
Agreed, but I read recently about some nincompoop who insinuated that Darwin was gay, because he had an ‘intimate Negro friend’. The word intimate has changed since the 19th CE.
Most words stand the test of time and hold onto their true definition. We cannot possibly communicate as a human race if nobody really knows what the other is trying to say. Otherwise it becomes like gay marriage, it just confuses the whole thing. ;)
You got 3 kids, right? Some of the commentary that comes out their mouths are double-blinks. ‘It’s da bomb!’ I don’t know if Canadian teenagers run thru the sudden vocabulary change, but I can assure you they do down here.
Whore defined (to date) has not changed. Applying the definitions to the actions substantiate the statement.
Wasn’t really challenging the definition of that particular word.
Besides I like it how Jesus put it. Let your "yes's be yes and your no's be no" That way there is no confusion.
“Do what you say,
Say what you mean,
Because one thing leads to a-nuh-other” – the Fixx
Besides, what was that thing about judging not? ;)
Hmmm took that a little personal did ya big guy? Actually that was a general statement based on similar scenarios I have come across on a sort of kinda regular basis.
Which is why I used an ‘if’.
When liberals run the country it seems to change more frequently.
Got more bad news: the Rethuglickans in my country reframe verbiage on a regular basis. Latest newsflash: criticism of the govnmnt amounts to ‘aiding & abetting the terrorists’. Wish I was joking.
More bunny trails. I will get you on this one another time.
Bring all your friends & a bag lunch too. It’ll take a while. ;)
It was not in a "Name calling" sort of way. I think you got the jist of my point in the article as you seem to read into the angle's I write from quite well. She was labeled. I looked up the current definition. According to her own acknowledgement, actions, and photographic evidence the term did in fact apply. She did not like it because it made her look bad. ????? That is probably why it is considered an ugly word. However it was used in it's correct form.
I haven’t really looked at the content closely. This was just a friendly visit.
If I were to call her a whore "just because" then it is done with malicious intent and mean spiritedness and does not actually apply. It's like those idiots who call virgins who won't sleep with them "sluts". I certainly would like to believe Belinda would learn from some of her choices. I do not believe that she will be "labeled" like this forever. BTW I did not put the "label" on her. It was already there. I just agreed with it.
I’ll give the whole thing a closer going over (maybe: it’s in Canada – it doesn’t impact me that greatly).
I believe I demonstrated that when I mentioned her sudden defection to the liberal party. I agree that there does always have to be a sexuality factor to apply. The definition has three versions. I pointed out that all three apply in her case.
Hey, was just having a bit of a natter. It does seem that you’re indulging in a bit o’ gossip. Apologies if off.
What was it Paul said about busybodies? (just playin’, hehehehe)
A few more links would be appreciated about the whole soiree.
KA,
" read recently about some nincompoop who insinuated that Darwin was gay, because he had an ‘intimate Negro friend’. "
LOL, That is ridiculous. I have heard the same thing regarding King David and his "close" intimate relationship with King Saul's son Jonathon.
"You got 3 kids, right?"
Yup! A proud papap of them all.
"Some of the commentary that comes out their mouths are double-blinks. ‘It’s da bomb!’"
Eeeeee, don't say that in an airport ;) I think we recognize the expression in a statement like that. Other words are more certainly hard to get around.
"Besides, what was that thing about judging not?"
Judging is passing sentence/condemning on someone. Making a statement based on factual observed evidence is just that. A statement of truth.
"criticism of the government amounts to ‘aiding & abetting the terrorists’"
Sometimes (not ALL times) that statement rings true. I admit though that it can be overused and abused. Just like the term "It is my Right"!
"Bring all your friends & a bag lunch too. It’ll take a while. ;)"
Oh brother, I just had a flashback of the school yard and the whole "I'll see you after school outside in the parking lot!" (LOL) Now how did I used too respond? Oh yeah, "I will need to bring my friends so they can pull me off of you." :p
"It does seem that you’re indulging in a bit o’ gossip."
I considered that before I wrote the article. Gossip is not something I care to indulge in. This story has been "out there" for awhile. The accused (if you will) make no denials of their actions. That is actually difficult to do when the photographs are rather implicating.
Links? Google Belinda's name and you can pick and choose which one you care to indulge in.
TIO:
LOL, That is ridiculous. I have heard the same thing regarding King David and his "close" intimate relationship with King Saul's son Jonathon.
Weeellll…it’s possible, all right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan
Eeeeee, don't say that in an airport ;) I think we recognize the expression in a statement like that. Other words are more certainly hard to get around.
Patois update: found out today that the latest phrase is ‘minute’. As in, “haven’t seen you in a minute” to someone you haven’t seen in a long time. The context would be lost on us old farts, to be sure.
Judging is passing sentence/condemning on someone. Making a statement based on factual observed evidence is just that. A statement of truth.
Well, not to…quibble, per se, but where did you get this information? Reliable sources? Triple checked ‘em? I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here.
Sometimes (not ALL times) that statement rings true. I admit though that it can be overused and abused. Just like the term "It is my Right"!
I’m gonna have to call you on that 1. When exactly is criticism equivalent to such treasonous behavior?
Oh brother, I just had a flashback of the school yard and the whole "I'll see you after school outside in the parking lot!" (LOL) Now how did I used too respond? Oh yeah, "I will need to bring my friends so they can pull me off of you." :p
Really? You’d heard that 1 before? You did offer to ‘get’ me, remember? I was just bein’ a bit playful.
Middle age hasn’t reduced my testerone, apparently.
I considered that before I wrote the article. Gossip is not something I care to indulge in. This story has been "out there" for awhile. The accused (if you will) make no denials of their actions. That is actually difficult to do when the photographs are rather implicating.
I have looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belinda_Stronach
She’s exceptionally successful, changed sides (which isn’t a bad thing in some cases), and surprise, surprise! She admits to smoking pot, is pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, & gun control.
Small wonder the hate & rage.
&, as usual, the other side resorts to personal attacks. How typical.
TIO
"Papap" around here means grandfather. Is that what you mean? Or father?
My how confusing words can be sometimes.
Someone oughta do a post on that. ;)
TIO,
I didn't read all of everyone's comments because frankly, there's a lot of words up there, and it's waaay too early for me to get into an evolution/creation debate. :)
However, I have to say that I gotta respect Belinda for her blantent whore-ness. I'd have a problem w her if she was denying that she's nothing more than a political prostitute.... I don't think that she is [denying it], (since she's being seen in public w Tie Domi). I gotta respect the 'balls' it takes to just be ok w the whole country calling you a whore (cuz come on, as if she didn't know that would happen....)
I'm back brotha!!!
KA,
Apologies for the delay. (I seem to be doing that alot these days).
"Weeellll…it’s possible, all right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan"
Wikepedia? Now there is a reliable source. I have said it before... I take anything they say with a grain of salt.
"The context would be lost on us old farts, to be sure."
True. Same us "S'UP?" (What's up?) I think it is all supposed to be verbal shorthand.
"Well, not to…quibble, per se,"
But your going to anyway :)
"I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here."
Neat. Your playing advocate for an entity you do not believe exists. (I know, I am quibbling over words) LOL
"When exactly is criticism equivalent to such treasonous behavior?"
I made a general statement. Be more specific. I may agree with you.
"She’s exceptionally successful, changed sides (which isn’t a bad thing in some cases), and surprise, surprise! She admits to smoking pot, is pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, & gun control."
Believe it or not, 4 months before she crossed the floor I was at a "men's breakfast" with my Federal MP and we started discussing politics (of course) and I mentioned to him that she was sitting on the wrong side of the house. He looked at me surprised and I just responded "Awww c'mon she is liberal thru and thru." Next time I saw him (after she crossed) he didn't say a word he just chuckled.
"Small wonder the hate & rage."
Hate and rage?!?!?! Oh for Pete sake. That sounds like people who hurl the word homophobe every time you disagree with homosexuality.
"the other side resorts to personal attacks."
If someone at least walks with integrity they will still be criticized for their policies and ideologies by those who disagree. In Belinda's case integrity went out the window. She may take it personal but the statements were accurate not attackful.
Karen,
Ha ha. Papa means grandfather up here as well. I was refering to the expression.
Doh! Why am I letting you bait me into quibbling?
Mandora,
"However, I have to say that I gotta respect Belinda for her blantent whore-ness. "
So you respect whores? I remember when girls used to beat up the school whores for being that way. Would you still respect Belinda if it was your man she was bedding?
"I gotta respect the 'balls' it takes to just be ok w the whole country calling you a whore"
She is not OK with it. She feels everyone is being to harsh on her. That does not detract from the fact that her actions say otherwise. If a woman behaves like one then she is one, right?
"I'm back brotha!!!
Bring it on sista!
TIO,
I said that stuff somewhat tongue in cheek (albeit only somewhat). Most people don't have the balls to just do what they want and nuts to whomever disagrees... yeah, she's being kinda whiney about it, but she's still behaving that way (which indicates to me that she can't REALLY be all that bothered by the attention)....
TIO
Doh! Why am I letting you bait me into quibbling?
;) Cos I'm irresistible, in an annoying kind of way! And you're a big ole' sucker of a teddy bear.
Besides it's your way of making up for totally ignoring my comment before that one. *pouts*
That's OK, I still love you.
I just love it how in college, professors have no problem with a little "potty talk". A "shit" here or a "hell" there is nothing more than a well placed word of emphasis.
But anyways, a "whore" is a "whore".
Exactly my point Nog.
A whore is a whore.
Again, not disputing the information presented in the argument.
Just wondering why you felt it was necessary.
What do you accomplish by calling this woman a whore?
Karen,
"Just wondering why you felt it was necessary.
What do you accomplish by calling this woman a whore?"
Accomplishment? This is a blog site. It is set up to discuss that which is controversial.
Up here in Canada this was a big story grabbing national headlines. Belinda was being accused of being (the "W" word). I wanted to either dispell or confirm the validity of the accusations being hurled her way.
As you can see by my presentation of it I think the term fit the actions. It was a piece designed for controversial discussion. Don't get me wrong here, there are many men who fit this description as well. But most men don't seem to care.(And I don't respect that BTW)
In Belinda's case she felt those members of parliament that were making these references were being childish and nasty. That is why I decided to do a piece to determine if the appropriate terminology applied. By definition of the word in question (according to her actions), I think it is fair to say that it does.
TIO:
Wikepedia? Now there is a reliable source. I have said it before... I take anything they say with a grain of salt.
I take everything EVERYONE says w/a grain of salt. Sometimes the entire shaker.
True. Same us "S'UP?" (What's up?) I think it is all supposed to be verbal shorthand.
200 yrs. from now, we’d not recognize the language.
But your going to anyway :)
Only a touch. ;)
Neat. Your playing advocate for an entity you do not believe exists. (I know, I am quibbling over words) LOL
The devil’s advocate is actually the phrase for the fellow who disputes the papal ascension, so no.
I made a general statement. Be more specific. I may agree with you.
Oh, no, now waitaminnit: you made a claim, I asked you to be more specific. If you would be so kind.
Hate and rage?!?!?! Oh for Pete sake. That sounds like people who hurl the word homophobe every time you disagree with homosexuality.
Hey, you know I’m not a big proponent of the ‘touchy-feely’ set. I call it the way I see it.
This happens a lot in the Western countries. We expect politicians to take stances-for-life, & not provide them w/the option of changing their minds. That’s foolish. Bill Simon, a Republican, some years ago changed his stance on abortion. His career went down the drain.
If someone at least walks with integrity they will still be criticized for their policies and ideologies by those who disagree. In Belinda's case integrity went out the window. She may take it personal but the statements were accurate not attackful.
& here is the question: is it primarily circumstantial? Would it hold up in a court of law? For instance, if someone were to actually present the ‘corpus delecti’ (body of the crime, not literally – smoking gun, say a photo of her & the other guy), it would be far more incriminating than a picture of her w/him at a public function. Or more accurately inflagrant delicto.
All due respect, I think this is more a gossip piece.
& I'd like to see you take someone to task from your own side (politically, that is).
KA,
Alright, let's get this one out of the way first.
"criticism of the govnmnt amounts to ‘aiding & abetting the terrorists’. Wish I was joking."
I may have misunderstood your angle but originally I felt you meant ANY criticism. Would I be correct in assuming you are referring to any criticism against the government with regards to military intervention/conflict/ war? I do recall Bush once saying in the early days after 9/11 that "If you are not with us then you are against us".
If I have understood you correctly (this time around) then I would agree that opposition to a governments position on war does not necessitate "aiding and abetting". I admit I do not always agree with your "Dumb"ocrats flowery and soft approach to detained terrorists who would not blink an eye when it came to interrogation and severe torture on your boys but I certainly feel they should be able to voice their opposition. That is part of the reason they are called the "opposition party". It is their job to hold the governments feet to the fire. That is how democracy works.
"The devil’s advocate is actually the phrase for the fellow who disputes the papal ascension"
I know that. I was just messing with ya!
" it would be far more incriminating than a picture of her w/him at a public function. Or more accurately inflagrant delicto.
All due respect, I think this is more a gossip piece."
Actually the photo in question was the proverbial smoking gun. Good ole' Tie had told his wife he was in New York with the boys when the photo (taking at the time he was "apparently" in NY) was actually taken in Calgary with her.
I disagree with the gossip portion because this was not a "news breaking" story I was passing on. It was not only focused on just the affair but the "crossing over" to the liberal party was also included as "selling out" her principals for personal gain (again, see definition of whore) What I wanted to debate, and I think some are still missing the point, was by her chosen and undeniable actions she got labeled as a whore. Was it fair? According to the definition of the word it is the correct terminology. I would not call or refer to someone as a whore just because I did not like them. That has mean spirited and malicious connotations behind it and is meant solely for derogatory purposes. If she had done nothing to reflect these terms then I would be writing in her defense. However the opposite was the reality. So those who referred to as a whore were not actually guilty of name calling. They used a term that was correctly applied in these circumstances. And that was the point of the post.
"I'd like to see you take someone to task from your own side (politically, that is)."
Done. I love a good challenge. I will even make the stakes as high as I can take them. I am big supporter of my current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, but early on in his tenure he did something that I was not proud of and found hypocritical on his part. (Even though I admit I also delighted in it just a little). It actually has a lot to do with his response to Belinda's floor crossing.
So how about you hotshot? Let's see who the bigger man is here? (LOL, sorry testosterone thing again) How about flip flopping John Kerry? Although that may be an easy target. See ya at the races :)
TIO:
I may have misunderstood your angle but originally I felt you meant ANY criticism.
You didn’t misunderstand. I did mean ANY criticism. First amendment, all that. Long as it doesn’t entail treasonous conduct (suggesting assassination, incite to riot, conspiracy to overthrowing the govnmnt, that sort of thing).
I admit I do not always agree with your "Dumb"ocrats flowery and soft approach to detained terrorists who would not blink an eye when it came to interrogation and severe torture on your boys but I certainly feel they should be able to voice their opposition. That is part of the reason they are called the "opposition party". It is their job to hold the governments feet to the fire. That is how democracy works.
Well, except for the Geneva Convention. Gee whiz, how inconvenient. However are we to tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, if each side acts the same then?
So how about you hotshot? Let's see who the bigger man is here? (LOL, sorry testosterone thing again) How about flip flopping John Kerry? Although that may be an easy target. See ya at the races :)
See, not really a Democrat. I think this either/or crap is the fallacy of the excluded middle writ large. I’m all for whoever can do the job well. The only reason I voted for Kerry is I wanted Shrub outta office. The only reason I’ll vote Demmie in November is I want the rubber-stamp congress tossed out. Voting party is silly, IMHO. The US wasn’t founded as a strictly 2-party system. But due to the propaganda (vote R or D, anything else is a ‘wasted vote’!), I’m forced to choose sides, rather than qualifications. They even make it difficult (in CA) to register as independent.
Personally, I think Kerry was a schill. 24 hrs. later, he bows out w/o a fight.
Oh, for a candidate like old ‘Give ‘em Hell Harry’!
My intense disgust for the GOP is pretty much their track record. They do 1 thing, say another, lie like rugs, & start wars based on petty vendettas.
The Demmies are wussies.
A 3rd party that has backbone is what we need in my country.
KA,
"Well, except for the Geneva Convention. Gee whiz, how inconvenient. However are we to tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’, if each side acts the same then?"
Quite easily actually. Article 4:2 states:
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (IE a chain of command. Found in the US army not so in a militia/terrorist organization which is rather top heavy with a chosen few dictating from the top.)
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (Must wear a uniform or display. We know the US army has this one covered. Strike two for Taliban/ Al-Qaida. Sorry but civilian garb does not count)
(c) That of carrying arms openly; (Again for the terrorist that would be a give away. Hiding your weaponry in civilian homes/in cars(bombs)/ on children is not in line with the convention either yet I see compliance with the US army. Strike three for the terrorist)
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.(the terrorists continue to remain incabale of abiding by the laws and customs of war. that is why they are not soldiers but cowards. Strike four)
As far as I am concerned the Geneva convention does not even apply to terrorists. Look how often they have defiantly humiliated your soldiers by hanging them in the public square, dragging their corpses thru the streets behind vehicles, and posting their decapitations on the internet. A complete and direct violation of Article 3 sections C & D which prohibits:
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Terrorists are not entitled to these protections and therefore your government can do what they will with them.
"See, not really a Democrat. I think this either/or crap is the fallacy of the excluded middle writ large. I’m all for whoever can do the job well."
Alright, fair enough. (I once voted Liberal in 1993 but keep that to yourself ;) So how about a positive article on your favorite people, the Christians :)
"A 3rd party that has backbone is what we need in my country."
I will actually agree with you on this one...to an extaent. The other side of the problem is that in my country we have too many parties. As long as a political party has a platform and registers with so many dollars and can place candidates i so many ridings who must also have so many signatures to support their candiacy they can then have an official status.
Problem is it plugs up ballot card (we avoid chads after witnessing your debacle in Florida LOL). You are now faced with a pile of different ideoligies and whole lot of confusion. Most people just end up voting for the traditional parties. BUT because we have four major parties we continue to be deluged every ten years (approx.) with minority Governments which have a very difficult time making Parliament work because none of the parties are on the same page. This leads us all back to the polls to soon without getting the business of the nation accomplished.
A minority here has never lasted longer then 2 years. We have now gone to the polls twice in less then 4 years and will probably be heading back to them again in the spring. That would be 3 times in 51/2 years. So ther is a down side to having too many options.
Just for your info, here are the names of all the parties that can officially run in any Federal election (strictly from memory so I may have left out one or two)
1.) The Conservative Party of Canada
2.) The Liberal Party of Canada (Eewwww)
3.) The New Democratic Party of Canada (very socialist)
4.) The Bloc Quebecois (They only run in the Province of Quebec and beat the "separatist drum while using Canadian tax dollars to promote their agenda of sovereignty. Do not ask me why they are allowed official status when they refuse to represent the rest of the country)
5.) The Green party of Canada (environmentalists)
These are just the major players. Continuing on with the minor parties who run candiadates:
6.) Christian Heritage party (self explanatory)
7.) The Action party
8.) The Marijuana party (sigh, Only in Canada)
9.) The Marxist-Leninist party (Yes KA we are that pathetically tolerant)
10.) The Libertarian party
11.) The Progressive Canadian party
12.) The Communist party of Canada (Hey, they don't look so bad when you put them beside the Marxist-Leninist's)
13.) The Animal Alliance party (they will probably move a motion to redefine marriage to allow dogs to marry each other)
14.) First Peoples party
15.) Independent ( just want to collect a paycheck)
There you have it KA. A little too busy if you ask me.
From a PR stand point Belinda is doing what all rock stars do when media hype is staring them right in the face. Pretend that it doesn't exist and hope that it will go away in 3 months.
I think she needs a hug from her Mother, maybe then she wouldn't try to make the rounds on anything that walks, now with that said I don't think Ti is completly innocent in this situtions either. I doubt Belinda held him down, ripped off his clothes and jumped on top. Unless of course Ti asked her to. *smile*
You are absolutley correct in Tie's guilt in the situation. I think if someone were to refer to him as a cheating "adulterer" it would certainly not be out of line. And Tie does not deny any of it.
I think in Belinda's case was that she was offended by a word that in all reality was applicable.
The other thing that should be acknowledged is that, whether one considers it fair or not, a higher expectation is placed on the behaviours of our public officials. When an MP flip flops on party ideologies, sleeps with married men, and then feels he/she is being marginalised or picked on when they are (at least in this case) accurately labelled their intregity should come under heavy scrutiny.
If one is willing to "cross the floor" for personal gain as opposed to princaple and thinks nothing of sexual escapades with married men then this is a demonstration of their character. And in my view it speaks lowly of that person. We then need to ask the question, "Do I really want this individual who is willing to compromise their "supposed" values to represent me when it comes to the business of the Nation?"
If this how they live their life on the outside it will defintley be the same when they are inside the House of Parliament. I would not one representing me who is incapable of standing on any type of princaple and lacks intergrity.
I have to agree and I'll go one step further... I think what Belinda is showing us is that she is UNABLE to COMMIT to one person, one idea, one party and this extends to ALL facets of her life. So, it doesn't surprise me that her morals are slightly off kilter.
I just wish that we could see into the lives of ALL our leaders, it would be so telling. I wonder what's in Georges closet... oh just thinking about it is making my ears bleed. lol
Post a Comment