Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Does Stephen Harper eat babies?

Funny story in the news today, apparently some hackers got into the electronic advertising system on Toronto's commuter GO Train system and reprogrammed it to say "Stephen Harper eats babies."

It caused much embarrassment for transit officials, who shut down the system until it could be properly secured to prevent future incidents from occurring in the future. Interesting though was the response from the Harper camp:

Dimitris Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, described the hacker's actions as "inappropriate and disrespectful."

Kind of a non-denial denial, isn't it? The question remains, does Stephen Harper eat babies? If so, why? If he doesn't, why hasn't he spoken up and forcefully and unreservedly denied these baby eating allegations, rather than letting them fester? What is he hiding? Do you eat babies or not, Mr. Harper? The Canadian people demand you be accountable here!

While Harper is remaining silent, his former colleagues are speaking up. Harper used to head the National Citizen's Coalition, and current NCC honcho Gerry Nicholas told Toronto's AM640 "he's worked with Harper for 5 years, and never once in that time... did Harper eat a baby."

That raises more questions than it answers though. Why give such a specific time frame, does he know that Harper ate a baby before his time with the NCC, or after? Has Harper eaten babies in 24 Sussex? In the House of Commons? Oh, the humanity!

Oh please, won't somebody think of the children?! I demand a judicial inquiry into the baby eating question at once, Mr. Speaker!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

15 comments:

Durable1 said...

Of course the Tories eat their young! They abolished their baby wing of the Tory party at a not to long ago Convention.
Liberals have always Prided themselves on the YLC that was why Resolution 40 passed and 30 % of all delegates are Youth.

Anonymous said...

Harper's reputation for eating babies is as founded as Dingwall's reputation for getting the taxpayers to pay for his gum.

A BCer in Toronto said...

...and as founded as anonymous posters' penchant for honesty, since it is widely known that the gum thing is crap and Dingwall did pay for his own, and didn't expense it as the fibbing Conservatives claimed.

Ti-Guy said...

This post is innapropriate and disrespectful.

...It helps if you picture the pursed lips and sour expression on my face as I type that. Or just look at the face of the nearest Conservative.

s.b. said...

It doesn't say he eats human babies. Veal and lamb are very tasty babies.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

This reminds me of something.

Did the McGuinty Liberals ever definitively deny that they were "reptilian kitten eaters" as the Tories claimed? Because, while kitten-eating may not be up there with baby-eating, "reptilian" makes me nervous. Harper may eat babies, but at least he's human, right?

This also makes the Conservative "childcare plan" seem a lot more logical... and terrifying! I never understood why the Tories wanted to just cut cheques for people, rather than actually coming up with a childcare strategy, and this revelation may well tell us. That $1200 isn't for "childcare"... it's for CHILDREN!!! He's not buying childcare for Canadians... he's buying SNACKS!!! Now, I don't believe for a moment that someone would sell their child to a baby-eater for $1200, but I also don't believe that $1200 will help ANYONE find good childcare. So maybe, unable to care for their children, and unable to find affordable childcare, some people will actually turn their children over to the PM for such a measly sum. Well, don't do it people!!! Harper's not as friendly and charming and good with kids as he seems.

"To serve Man" is a cookbook.

A COOKBOOK!!!

A BCer in Toronto said...

Or just look at the face of the nearest Conservative.

Alas, I work in the media, and as you know we're all Liberal whores, so no Conservative faces around here... :)

Anonymous said...

Lawrence Metherel. But you were waiting for that one, weren't you?

Saskboy said...

This story kinda makes those pictures of Harper holding babies, a bit funnier.

I have a modest proposal. Liberals should be made to eat any children that they don't have the money to raise themselves, or send to daycare. Do what Harper would do.

ottlib said...

This gives a whole new spin on that picture of the little boy pinching Mr. Harper's nose.

Maybe he was just defending himself.

chuckheston said...

Methnks the first anonymous was agreeing with the concept that the Dingwall-and-gum incident was a Tory sham blown into a media Schmoozle... And really, now we know why the tories jumped all over the 'beer and popcorn' comment. The $1200 is meant to fatten up the babies, not the parents!
A little grey poupon with your soulent green, Prime Minister Harper?
It's people, people!

A BCer in Toronto said...

Lawrence Metherel. But you were waiting for that one, weren't you?

Ah yes, someone got the subtle, hidden message beneath my sarcastic rant. Ridiculosuly stupid allegations don't need to be taken seriously/denied.

Methnks the first anonymous was agreeing with the concept that the Dingwall-and-gum incident was a Tory sham blown into a media Schmoozle...

Upon re-reading I think you may be right, so if so my bad my anonymous friend.

Anonymous said...

BCer, as I was the first anonymous, yes, I do think the Dingwall-and-gum incident was a Tory sham blown into a media Schmoozle. I still can't conceive that in this country you can without consequences use the image of a person you know to be innocent and portray this person as the poster boy of corruption and sleeze in a country-wide advertising blitz. So me thinks we haven't heard the end of this. I wonder if Margaret Wente and Rex Murphy ever reread their past columns...

Geekwad said...

I recall that McGuinty wasted very little time in publicly denying the accusation. But the memory is fuzzy.

Cyaxares_died said...

five years later, still funny.