Well are the Liberals and Cons really mixing it up, or is this pretendy, so it does not seem as if they are cooperating with another? Apparently the Cons were lying as usual, and Kinsella"dared" them to make said comment outside of the HoC, apparently Paradis did.
Kinsella suing Paradis
Mon, 2009-03-02 09:39
#1
remind
Kinsella suing Paradis
Mon, 2009-03-02 09:53
#2
Thanks Remind
It seems that WK is suing a lot of people these days.
Mon, 2009-03-02 09:55
#3
Warren has become a caricature of himself, and seemingly can't bear to be out of the spotlight. He's forgotten the key point about the role of a "behind-the-scenes" political strategist: which is to promote your candidates and remain behind the scenes yourself. I suppose I'll be sued for saying this.
Mon, 2009-03-02 13:10
#4
remind
I am sooooooooo torn on this.
I agree with you OO, but I am so very tired of the lies that the CONS just spew when they open their mouths, whether in Question Period or about the governance of Canada and anything for that matter. Perhaps if they are exposed for be lying liars publically in a law suit, then people will start being more critical with what they are hearing and being told.
There was a critical mass moment in the USA with the Shrub et al, when people realized the extent they were beinglied to. I only hope Canadians wake up before the utter devatation occurs like which has happened in the USA.
Billions spent on wars, bankrupted states and local governments, decaying infrastructure both physical and social, millions of homeless, which are the norm down there now, will soon be upon us here. Harper is moving us at double time toward that reality too, so if Kinsella exposes him and them for the liars they are, well then that is great.
Mon, 2009-03-02 13:24
#5
Frustrated Mess
Being sued by Warren Kinsella is the new black
Mon, 2009-03-02 13:26
#6
The comments hardly seem libelous.
Mon, 2009-03-02 13:33
#7
Agreed, Caissa. I'm not a lawyer but I would think that calling a public figure (Kinsella as a blogger, writer, tv commentator probably qualifies as a public figure) "disgraced" probably falls under "fair comment." It's an opinion that he is "disgraced." If he had called him a "pedophile" which is an actual allegation of criminality, I think Kinsella would ahve a case but not ehre. he does seem to be suing a lot of people these days though.
Mon, 2009-03-02 15:39
#8
remind
WTH< I posted in the threadrabble reactions and my labour post and me ended up in this thread.
Mon, 2009-03-02 15:45
#9
In the future everybody will be sued by Warren Kinsella for 15 minutes.
Mon, 2009-03-02 16:26
#10
remind, if I thought Warren's suit had the slightest chance of doing that, I would jump on board right after you.
However, I think all it does is add to the general noise of he-said-she-said, mine's-bigger-than-yours, no-it-isn't-yes-it-is, etc., etc., repeat ad nauseum.
Of course, to ramp up the drama his suit alleges the comments have caused grief to his wife and kids. Then, why oh why does he need to bring them into it himself?
A pox on all their houses, I say. The best way to gain distance from all this is not to participate in it at all ... to wit, I probably shouldn't have even commented once on this thread, never mind twice :-0
Still, thank you for posting the link to the document.
Mon, 2009-03-02 16:44
#11
Frustrated Mess
The type of person who would say that is the type of person who is still being sued by Ezra Levant ... how yesterday ...