Oy

Not much else I can say about this.

You go girl?

87 Responses to “Oy”


  1. 1 Frank Frink Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Ummm… stating the obvious, Octopussy?

  2. 2 Dr. Prole Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    I hope she tells those sickening assholes to fuck right off.

  3. 3 Raphael Alexander Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    Well, she’s already a public assistance whore. She may as well earn the title officially.

  4. 4 JJ Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    FF – Octopussy, oh geez 😆 I missed that one.

  5. 5 JJ Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Dr.Prole – Hopefully that’s exactly what she will do. I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t mind making a movie, but I doubt if pron is what she had in mind.

  6. 6 JJ Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    RA – Okay, what exactly is a “public assistance whore”? Just out of curiousity.

  7. 7 Bruce Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:06 am

    Reminds me of a Bugs Bunny episode, where Elmer Fudd claimed to be a wabbit and Bugs took his place. The doctor instructed Bugs to say I am Elmer Fudd, I am a millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. Elmer got off Scot free.

  8. 8 psa Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:23 am

    i seem to recall ol’ final solution alexander suckling at the public teat before heading west. takes one to know one i suppose. not that there’s anything wrong with being a whore. you get to make up a fancy name and sooner than later a conservative will get caught wearing something rubber and paying for your, um, favouors. or you just spread ’em and end up in the pages of a worthless rag like the post.

  9. 9 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 7:32 am

    RA, you mean a welfare whore like Kathy Shaidle? And apparently yourself (according to PSA)?

    Ironically enough, OctoMom’s babies all have one daddy, and she didn’t even have sex to conceive them. What a whore.

  10. 10 CC Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:29 am

    So, Nadya … is there any tread left on the tires or, at this point, is it like throwing a hot dog down a hallway?

  11. 11 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Stewie I mean CC, nothing went into or came out of her vag. It was all syringes, test tubes and surgeries. Should be good to go as far as friction is concerned. She’s only a whore according to RA, to whom anyone besides him living on the public dole is some kind of prostitute.

  12. 13 Niles Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    I’m sure that such a ‘career’ of sexual degradation (they did say *hard core* and that uh – ‘field’ has slipped wayyy into real sex-abusive scenes) by proxy-punisher men, would delight all those who have found ms. suleman the height of uppitiness. All those kids and not one conceived through ‘normal’ means. Apparently all she needs is a good…man.

    I do like the way the sexvid lords are dangling money and healthcare in front of a woman with kids. At least they’re stating their intent in public; put out for us or lose your kids and starve in the street. I wonder how many other women have had to make that choice *this year* without all the publicity? (like child services would let her keep her kids if she went into hardporn, even as a shortlived novelty act. eeeyah)

    It’s another PR blast, leeching/exploiting low hanging fruit events like Ms. Suleman to get free airtime for their own business, while ur-man branding the woman at the centre of this teapot tempest a whore for the right amount of money, which I expect will stick to future whingeing about her, no matter how she turns it down.

    No such thing as bad publicity, right JJ? Taking up column inches all over the country and we know that size, especially for those folks, matters.

    Mr. Alexander, thanks for proving my initial observation of what stereotypical backlash awaited Ms. Suleman. With people like you waiting in the wings, some predictions are easier to make than others.

  13. 14 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    A couple of responses to the mentally challenged questions above:

    1. E.I. isn’t social assistance. We pay into that fund every single time the government illegally expropriates that income on every pay cheque. It isn’t social assistance in any way, shape, or form.

    2. I never got E.I., although I was fully entitled to it.

  14. 15 psa Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    so you didn’t receive social assistance ruffles? well goody for you, you aren’t a whore. you’re just a hate mongering, xenophobic bigot with delusions of genocide dancing in your nasty little head. you have my apologies for mischaracterizing your deviance.

  15. 16 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    No apologies necessary I’m sure. We both understand our places in this little game of mortal enemies we’re playing.

  16. 17 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Hey you kids settle down! Don’t make me come up there… 😆

  17. 18 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Bruce – Elmer Fudd is forever tainted to me, after having seen his image used by Blogging Tory “Hunter the Braindead” as an avatar. 😦

  18. 19 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    psa – If RA’s smart he’ll be knocking wood when he denigrates someone on public assistance — the way things are going, he could be next.

  19. 20 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Dr.Prole

    RA, you mean a welfare whore like Kathy Shaidle?

    That’s kind of an insult to welfare whores.

  20. 22 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    JJ,

    The axe is near the neck, most certainly. But unlike those on social assistance, I would literally work six jobs 7 days a week to feed my family if it came right down to it. There is always work somewhere for those who are willing to look and find it. Excuses are like assholes. Every lefty has one.

  21. 24 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    Niles

    which I expect will stick to future whingeing about her, no matter how she turns it down.

    I don’t know, Niles, I expect that when she turns it down it might actually encourage people to take her a little more seriously and help her out with donations or whatever. So it could work in her favour.

  22. 25 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    RA

    Excuses are like assholes. Every lefty has one.

    Painting with a bit of a broad brush there, RA.

  23. 26 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Oh, sorry about that. I borrowed that broad brush from Canadian Cynic. I’ll just hand it back now so that he can continue to smear the right on his blog.

  24. 27 psa Friday, February 27, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    so ruffles, is your next big opinion piece in the post going to be under the ‘raphael alexander’ brand or a more accurate name? now toddle off to your dreams of genocide and misogyny, there’s a good troll. wanker.

  25. 28 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Whatever you say “PSA”. And yeah, RA is a brand. Has every author in history used their given names?

  26. 29 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    RA today:

    “1. E.I. isn’t social assistance. We pay into that fund every single time the government illegally expropriates that income on every pay cheque. It isn’t social assistance in any way, shape, or form.

    2. I never got E.I., although I was fully entitled to it.”

    RA in January:

    “Raphael Alexander Says:
    January 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    BBS,

    When I was on E.I. a few years ago I had part-time work which they deducted from my payment. Rather than encourage me to find full-time work, it was tempting to merely find an under-the-table job to milk both. Tempting, but I didn’t do it. Of course I assume not everyone has a fair sense of ethics, hence the $100 million fraud in the fund every year.”

    http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/expanding-ei-will-only-increase-fraud/

    I’m just sayin’.

  27. 30 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Prole,

    1. Again, E.I. isn’t social assistance.

    2. PSA asserted a factual inaccuracy: “i seem to recall ol’ final solution alexander suckling at the public teat before heading west.”

    This was incorrect. Note your own quote above:

    “When I was on E.I. a few years ago[…]”

    That was several years ago, not last year when I was unemployed after being laid off two days after my daughter was born, and a day after my grandfather died.

    And besides, if I’m not the example of proactive solutions to unemployment, I don’t know what is. I was laid off in Ontario, saw a worsening economy, a terrible premier in power, and I headed for greener pastures. How many people have simply gone on E.I. and hoped it will get better?

  28. 31 pale Friday, February 27, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    2. I never got E.I., although I was fully entitled to it.

    But he did. and then he didn’t and so on and so on and SoCON.

    We knew he was a revisionist and a flip flopping racist , now hes a friggin liar again too.

  29. 32 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    Several years ago, last year, whatever. You collected E.I. (which to me is a form of social assistance) and you clearly said upthread that you didn’t.

    Bully for you for being able to pick up and move to greener pastures. Here’s a cookie. Do you really think that’s a viable option for everyone? Because it’s not. Besides, like I’ve said, you moved out here and took a job that my husband or some other BC native or long-time resident maybe could have had. So you fucked at least one local person over by doing what you did – if not my husband than someone else having a hard time finding work here right now. Good thing I’m a feminist with a job so we don’t end up homeless.

  30. 33 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 8:44 pm

    has every author in history used their real name?

    No, Raphie, and no one has questioned or disputed that. But neither have we made quite the fuss that you have about other bloggers pseudonymity, because we already understand reasons why others might choose that route. I also recall your insistence that the pen name ‘Raphael Alexander’ was indeed your ‘real’ name. You kinda fudged on that one, too.

    Not only have you proven yourself to be a liar and a bigot, you also prove to be a hypocrite. Still sure you you want to join us in a social event? Man, would your ass be sore from all the kicking you would receive. And ass-kicking might prove to be the least of it.

  31. 34 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    which to me is a form of social assistance

    Nonsense. Since the government expropriate my income without consultation, and puts it away into a collectivist fund for me, I have no problem with accessing it during a time of need. Although for the record I would prefer scrapping it completely and allowing people to keep their entire pay.

    I’m not going to tell you I’m not a liar. You can believe whatever you wish. The left often do.

  32. 35 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    I also recall your insistence that the pen name ‘Raphael Alexander’ was indeed your ‘real’ name.

    Both those names appear on my birth certificate, which is likely more than I can say about the words “pale”, “prole”, “Frank Frink” or whatever other inane pseudonyms you’ve invented for yourselves.

    But as Billy Shakes said, what is in a name? Does a nice name make Canadian Cynic any less of a total douchebag?

    Not really.

  33. 36 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Both those names appear on my birth certificate,

    Yes, half witted child, we’ve been through that already. It isn’t your full name . So, you’re still a hypocrite. What else is new?

    Does a nice name make Canadian Cynic any less of a total douchebag?

    Neither does a ‘nice’ name or ‘real’ Canadian name like ‘Raphael Alexander’ make you any less of a lying, hypocritical bigot. I can keep kicking your ass all night long if you’re that much of a bugger for punishment.

  34. 37 JJ Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    I’m just peeking in to make sure there’s no blood.

    Okay, carry on…

  35. 38 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    What is your essential point? Or have you lost your thoughtless train of thought?

    Let’s recap:

    1. Nadya Suleman is a parasitic and irresponsible woman who should be condemned for bringing hungry mouths into the world on a welfare salary.

    2. E.I. is not social assistance.

    3. I’ve been on E.I. briefly in the past, but would never do so again.

    4. I’ve been accused of being a liar, an allegation to which I refuse comment.

    5. You and your little friends here, being of sound mind, have decided to spend your Friday night condemning a pseudonym under your own pseudonyms.

    Have I got that about right? Or do you have some more irrelevancies to share?

  36. 39 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Raph, forever the master at removing u-m-e from assume.

    Ummm.. Raph. I’m at work right now. Yes, some people work Friday nights. Also Sunday afternoons. It happens. Anything else you wish to assume? May as well let us know right now.

  37. 40 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    Ok, RA well you can not consider E.I. social assistance, that’s fine. I do. Difference of opinion. However. You’re hedging on the fact that you said you did NOT collect E.I. upthread, while you previously said on your blog that you DID, which I proved with a quote and a link. Did you conveniently forget about the time when you did collect it and then remember after you hit “submit”? I kinda doubt it.

  38. 41 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    Oh, Dr. Prole! Raph Maph has just announced that he’s “been on E.I. briefly in the past, but would never do so again.”

    Which should hold true… until such that he does again. But that, of course, will be different.

  39. 42 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    Prole,

    It isn’t a difference of opinion. I’ve paid far more money into E.I. than I’ve ever collected. Hence, it’s my own money to do with as I require. I’ve not been to a doctor in 15 years either. Does that mean when I go to the doctor one day that you’ll say that’s a form of social assistance?

    As for the whole E.I. thing, I refuted Pathetic Shaved Ape’s assertion that I collected E.I. last year when I was laid off. I did not. I applied for it, but never heard back from them. Typical, as the entire system is broken and has been for decades.

    I have collected in the past, but since Pathetic was referring to a specific incident, I felt the need to clarify. Not that it matters to fact-ignoring cretins like yourself.

    It’s strange to hear socialists who believe E.I. a form of social assistance. Workers are not eligible for the fund without putting money into it. Or you have you not reconciled that most devastatingly obvious fact yet?

    You know, not that I give a shit about the three of you stooges, but as I’m rambling here to the Universe, I want to set the record straight:

    I don’t have a problem with people being on E.I. and welfare. These things exist as social security nets, and people are supposed to use them in need. In the case of Nadya Suleman [the whore], she abuses the generosity of the system, and makes everyone that much more bitter and cynical about it. In short, she ruins social security for everybody.

  40. 43 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    Nadya Suleman might very well be a parasite who should be condemned. But you referred to her as a “whore”. Which she is NOT. I fail to see how you really even care about what social assistance she receives, not being a California taxpayer or even an American federal taxpayer. Why upset about it enough to call her a sexist derogatory name like “whore”? It’s not effecting you in any personal way. She’s not asking you to babysit or pay her hospital bills, or even watch her reality show if she gets one, and here’s hoping she does – then she won’t have to rely on the state. Best case scenario.

  41. 44 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Raph says.. It’s strange to hear socialists who believe E.I. a form of social assistance.

    and

    Raph also say… I don’t have a problem with people being on E.I. and welfare. These things exist as social security nets..

    And this, folks, is why we mock him. Mercilessly.

  42. 45 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    Social safety net, social assistance, it’s the same thing and you just said it. Semantics. Tomato, tomahto. It’s there if you need it, and not if you don’t. E.I. is insurance – you pay into it way more than you might ever get. Big fucking deal, it’s the same way with cars and homeowner’s insurance. Mandatory. Deal with it and be damn glad you have it to fall back on. I pay for lots of stuff with my taxes that I don’t agree with, believe me.

    Yanno, I don’t think I’ve been especially nasty to you. Regarding the thing with PSA and the time you did or didn’t rely on the social safety net, why DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY SO IN THE FIRST PLACE? I don’t read your blog, I generally don’t read anything about you or even your comments in other blogs except here. Would you really expect me or anyone else to know that?

  43. 46 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Social assistance is money given to people who have not contributed to society. Employment insurance is money given to people who have contributed to a collectivist fund.

    Social security is a broad term for socialist programs that seek to reduce the harmful impact of poverty or periods of unemployment. You might be able to group E.I. into a form of social security in a broad sense, although Prole is asserting it is a “social assistance”, which is clearly designated as welfare.

    Furthermore, E.I. has restrictions and time limits that curtail abuse. If anything, it is the program that abuses the worker.

    I don’t have a problem with people who require social assistance for brief periods of time while they try to work out a way to get back into working. I do have a problem with people like Nadya Suleman.

  44. 47 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Social security is a broad term for socialist programs that seek to reduce the harmful impact of poverty or periods of unemployment.

    So why would you have thought (earlier that) it was ‘strange’ that ‘socialists’ would see it that way?

    Keep yapping your way into a pretzel, Raphie boy.

  45. 48 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Prole,

    I’m not “damn glad” I have EI to fall back on. It’s a worthless fund that expropriates worker income and doesn’t work the way it was designed:

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/27/pe-ei-crisis.html

    I will never apply to that program again, though I continue to pay money into it unwillingly.

    As for the PSA comment, I thought I was being rather clear. It made a rather unsavoury allegation that I was on E.I. just prior to moving to B.C. and that was an erroneous assertion. Thus when you lumped me into the category of those on social assistance, it was quite predictably offensive.

  46. 49 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Frank,

    I said that I find it odd that socialists consider E.I. a form of social assistance when it clearly is not. It is only considered under the “umbrella” group of social security programs. It is different from programs that offer assistance without qualification.

  47. 50 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Pfffffft. Why don’t you have a Teabagging Party like they had in the USA today in conjunction with CPAC and register your disgust with the horrible socialism that is impinging on your liberties.

    I’m bored. Goodnight.

  48. 51 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Thus when you lumped me into the category of those on social assistance, it was quite predictably offensive.

    And there in essence, as we knew all along, is Raph’s problem. He’s not like those people. They’re beneath him. he’s much better than those people.

    I will never apply to that program again

    Well, when you do apply for it again just be sure that you don’t mention it anywhere on the innerdnets.

    (ps – never say ‘never’, Raph. About anything)

    (pps – since you seem to have a crystal ball, what are tomorrow’s winning 6-49 numbers?)

  49. 52 Dr. Prole Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    Oh one more thing – I am not a socialist. Calling me one is an error. You don’t know anything about me.

  50. 53 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Prole,

    Goodnight.

    Frank,

    It’s not that I’m better. It was a factual inaccuracy clearly meant to slight me. Don’t pretend you’re as stupid as you claim to be.

    As for the lottery, I don’t play. I consider it a “poverty tax”.

  51. 54 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Prole,

    You don’t know anything about me.

    Ditto.

  52. 55 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    As for the lottery, I don’t play. I consider it a “poverty tax”.

    Raph, nice try. I didn’t ask if you played. I just asked for the numbers since you appear to have a crystal ball or certainty.

    Don’t pretend you’re as stupid as you claim to be.

    Ah yes, the old ‘I know you are but what am I?’. Guess it’s safe to add unimaginative childish bore to liar, bigot and hypocrite.

  53. 56 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    errr… crystal ball of certainty

  54. 57 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Frank,

    For the last time. Do you have a point here? Other than your loathing and hatred?

    Do you have anything of any value whatsoever to say? Or are we done here?

  55. 58 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    It is different from programs that offer assistance without qualification.

    It’s all income assistance. The only difference is in the terms of qualification.

  56. 59 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    As for your crystal ball, read the CBC article I linked to. I don’t intend to put my children through that nonsense. I will dig ditches and wash dishes before I wait 2 months for my own money.

  57. 60 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Frank,

    For the last time. Do you have a point here? Other than your loathing and hatred?

    Do you have anything of any value whatsoever to say? Or are we done here?

    Haven’t you learned yet that you are in absolutely no position to dictate what I say to you, how I say it or when I choose to say it. Actually, you’re in no position to dictate anything to me at all.

    So, no. We’re not done here.

  58. 61 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Listen, Frank. I’ll tell you what. Ask me whatever is obviously keeping you away from your important Friday night job and I’ll try and respond as best as I am able. I can’t promise I won’t find something more interesting to do in the mean time.

  59. 62 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    I will dig ditches and wash dishes before I wait 2 months for my own money.

    How wonderful. You’ll throw away ‘your own money’ for what? Some principle? So you have something to complain about? or just to complain that the ‘socialists’ have taken your money and given it to someone else?

    And wouldn’t that wait period have something to do with trying to curb abuses? Or are you not in favour of cubing abuse of the program.

  60. 63 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    or just to complain that the ’socialists’ have taken your money and given it to someone else?

    No. It would be based on negative personal experience. Experience that is clearly backed up by the experiences of others in that CBC article you refuse to acknowledge.

    And wouldn’t that wait period have something to do with trying to curb abuses? Or are you not in favour of cubing abuse of the program.

    No, I’m not. In this case the money is based upon proportionate contributions. So it’s your money. You should get it immediately. The government never has to wait more than 2 weeks for theirs.

  61. 64 pale Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Just leave it. He’s a dishonest little liar, and a total asshat. And if there is a blogging party, I will not be attending with the Narc. 🙂
    Some people have no honour, the RA construct is just a fake and an empty shell like the rest.

  62. 65 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Listen, Frank.

    Again with the imperatives. The ‘demands’. pffffffftttttt.

    Ask me whatever is obviously keeping you away from your important Friday night job and I’ll try and respond as best as I am able.

    Ok, I will. Think you can get through a day without being such an obtuse, obnoxious, pompous and self-righteous ass?

    Raph, you don’t know what the future has in store for you. Don’t be so certain that you or anyone else will never require assistance of some sort. I’m not saying that you will, but neither will I say with absolute certainty that you won’t.

  63. 66 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Uh, “narc”?

  64. 67 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    Think you can get through a day without being such an obtuse, obnoxious, pompous and self-righteous ass?

    If you can do it, I’m certainly willing to try as well.

    I’m not saying that you will, but neither will I say with absolute certainty that you won’t.

    Nothing is certain. But I’m more prone to going with probability.

    The truth, as it happens, and I continue to tell you, is that we’re not so different as you think. I used to lean left and believed pretty much what you believe. I’ve been there, I’ve done that. I understand your arguments because I used to make them.

    I’m working class. I get dirty every day. I work in the trades. I’m blue collar through and through. I don’t have pretensions about myself beyond the fact that I feed and clothe my dependent family.

    My parents were leftists. My mother a feminist. My grandfather in the NDP. I’ve heard thousands of hours of arguments about socialism.

    Do you think for a moment that I haven’t given all of this a lot of thought myself?

  65. 68 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    Uh, “narc”?

    In a generic sense, Raph. Gah, you’re so literal.

    Yep, ‘narc’. I’m pretty confident you wouldn’t have any qualms about sharing any real, personal information you would glean about us at a blog meetup with certain even more unsavoury people on your side of the aisle. I wouldn’t trust any of my personal info with you. Some of it might ‘accidentally’ slip out.

    i.e. some of us don’t see you as worthy of our trust. You haven’t earned it.

  66. 69 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    Uh, “narc”?

    In a generic sense, Raph. Gah, you’re so literal.

    Yep, ‘narc’. I’m pretty confident you wouldn’t have any qualms about sharing any real, personal information you would glean about us at a blog meetup with certain even more unsavoury people on your side of the aisle. I wouldn’t trust any of my personal info with you. Some of it might ‘accidentally’ slip out.

    i.e. some of us don’t see you as worthy of our trust. You haven’t earned it.

  67. 70 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    I don’t care about earning your trust, but for the record it was Red Tory, someone on your side of the aisle, who “outed” me after I told him I was using a pseudonym in a private correspondence offering him condolences about his divorce.

    I have been entrusted with some rather big secrets in the time I’ve been blogging. Whenever someone has asked me to be confidential, I have. It’s the way I was raised. I would never, ever, ever share a personal email with the public. Nor would I use a personal meeting to score political points on the internet. I’ve met many people since I moved here in blogger meetups and haven’t so much as mentioned it on my blog.

  68. 71 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    The truth, as it happens, and I continue to tell you, is that we’re not so different as you think.

    No, Raph. We’re very, very different. We could start with me not being a bigot, liar or hypocrite.

    I don’t have pretensions about myself beyond the fact that I feed and clothe my dependent family.

    Oh lawdy no, only your sense of ‘entitlement’ about being a 5th-generation Canadian. You don’t think that’s pretentious? Let alone oh-so-precious? Shit, you really do think you deserve a cookie. Know what else is pretentious? Just stating that “The truth, as it happens, and I continue to tell you, is that we’re not so different as you think.” Pretensions? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  69. 72 Frank Frink Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    Ummm… Red Tory hasn’t “outed” you. Outing you would be stating your full, legal name. He didn’t do that. He only stated that Raphael Alexander was not your full legal name. Something which we strongly suspected anyway.

    Don’t assume so much that Red & I are ‘on the same side of the aisle’. Or that I particularly care that much any more about what he has to say and write than I care about what you say or write.

    Again. Outing, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    Nor would I use a personal meeting to score political points on the internet. I’ve met many people since I moved here in blogger meetups and haven’t so much as mentioned it on my blog.

    So you say. I have seen no reason to believe you or trust you. As I said earlier, you have not earned it from me.

  70. 73 Raphael Alexander Friday, February 27, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    Well, I’ve said my piece and I’ve been honest. I’m tired now, from working my physical job, so I’m going to bed.

    You have selective interest in what I have to say, which makes me feel you debate just as selectively. When you choose to address the valid points I make, I may consider discussing with you again.

  71. 74 psa Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 4:47 am

    “Whatever you say “PSA”. And yeah, RA is a brand. Has every author in history used their given names?”

    yummy scare quotes there bub. thing is while i choose to employ a pseudonym, i’ve never argued and ranted that that was my real name and while i do chose to use a nom de blog, i’ve also used my legal name. for me psa or pretty shaved ape are just fun. but since i did use my real name on a few occasions, when i felt that the issue was sufficiently serious, it has been one of your right wing compatriots who has made every effort to employ that knowledge as a weapon and the same thing happened to red tory. this odious right wing tactic has also been threatened against others. the kids you swing with over on the right have made exposing leftward blogger’s identities a goal for the express purpose of doing harm to lives, families and careers. which justifies the caution that others might employ in keeping their identities concealed from your ideological ilk.

    funny thing though, now that we’ve established that you’re a liar, nobody’s really interested in discovering, much less exposing, your identity. the bottom line is that you made a rather big show of lying your face off about it and your duplicity has been exposed, beyond that, who cares. and as for your assertions that ei isn’t social assistance, well that just proves that you’re happy to lie to yourself as well as others. the social safety net is made up of a variety of programs, ei being one of them. the money comes directly off your check whereas welfare funding comes out of your taxes. that distinction is pretty damned minor. and as far as the system not working to your liking, maybe you should write a letter to steve and get him on the job of looking out for workers. except that he doesn’t really give a fuck. but please do tell us how brilliantly the private sector insurance system works in terms of accommodating the needs of the public, made a claim lately?

    as to your assertion that there are no qualifications to receive welfare assistance, man are you wrong. welfare, in ontario at least, provides a fraction of subsistence and is riddled with obstacles and limitations that are punitive in nature. i have a friend recovering from surgery, she went to welfare because she could not work and was in a last option available situation. after an enormous hassle she did eventually receive a meager sum. and that sum had been reduced by two hundred dollars because there was another person living in her home, her 90+ year old mother. here in ontario, welfare had been crippled and stigmatized, the levels of assistance reduced and the system made intentionally punitive by one of yours, good old mike harris. one of steve’s buddies squatting down among the other right wing trash at the manning center for bigotry and corporate greed.

    at the end of the day ruffles, we’ve established that you’re a liar, a homophobe, a xenophobe and generally just a bigot with pretensions of grandeur and entitlement.

    “Well, I’ve said my piece and I’ve been honest.”

    except for all of your prevarication and the slippery, slippery goalposts. have a lovely weekend you conservatively enlightened, formerly socialist, lying snot.

  72. 75 JJ Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 6:03 am

    Never mind, I have to go to work, I don’t have time. Later!

  73. 76 Raphael Alexander Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 11:30 am

    What utter twaddle, PSA.

  74. 77 KEvron Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 11:39 am

    is “twaddle” canadian for “honesty”, you fucking liar?

    KEvron

  75. 78 KEvron Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 11:42 am

    “Both those names appear on my birth certificate”

    “dr. brown” appears on my birth certificate, along with a few others. that doesn’t mean you’re not a liar, though.

    KEvron

  76. 79 JJ Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    Sorry I couldn’t join the party, it looks like everyone had fun. 😐

    RA, seriously. “I borrowed that broad brush from Canadian Cynic.”?? CC doesn’t ridicule anyone that doesn’t deserve it, IMO.

    Eh well…

  77. 80 psa Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    given little raph’s latest contribution to civil discourse over at our digs i think i can safely right him off as a lost cause. bad bigot, no crackers.

  78. 81 JJ Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    psa – Yes, I just saw. Very impressive.

    I’m starting to think RA has a split personality — sometimes he seems okay (if somewhat misguided), but other times he seems to go out of his way to be an asshole.

  79. 82 Frank Frink Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    There’s no split personality. This is just how he is, how he operates. It is as many of us have said. He’s a classic passive-aggressive personality. The ingratiating veil of obsequiousness eventually drops.

  80. 83 JJ Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    FF – He’s rude to a lot of people, but not me for some reason. I guess because I haven’t caught as many of his unsavoury moments as everyone else, and those I have, I’ve mostly ignored. I did call him out about what he said about feminism destroying the family — and RA, if you’re reading, YOU STILL HAVEN’T APOLOGIZED YET. I’M WAITING…

  81. 84 psa Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 4:12 am

    jj you’re just too darn nice. you’ll put up with the little snotrag, you’re courteous and generous so he feels as though he has a comfort zone here from which he can portray the “reasonable con”. but when held to account he reveals himself in all of his ugliness.

  82. 85 JJ Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 5:38 am

    psa – 😆 You’re probably right.

  83. 86 pale Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 8:38 am

    Truthiness.

    Its also blatantly obvious that RA just says whatever he thinks works for his argument at that moment. It has become impossible for him to even keep his stories straight.
    I have met a few bloggers in meatspace, and they are pretty much who they are online…

    There are a couple however that I will never meet, that I have decided are only constructs. RA is one, but there appear to be at least some consistencies in his story.

    A bigot, with a warped sense of entitlement and a real hate on for his difficult life with wimmens having rights and all that stuff.

  84. 87 KEvron Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 9:54 am

    “He’s a classic passive-aggressive personality. The ingratiating veil of obsequiousness eventually drops.”

    bing-fucking-o.

    KEvron


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,762
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: