She is not saying she can't speak her mind. She is saying in fact that she does speak her mind and the reaction from Conservatives is very different, very personal and attacking, than is the reaction from others.

Could somebody give spod a keyboard with a return key?

Well, I considered the possibility that it was 416 (the most reasonable typo under the circumstances), but then I thought, what sounds better: (a) being so disturbed by a phone call in which an MP, responding to a constituent's letter, expresses their (apparently ham-handed) insistence on wanting to address the substantive content of the letter or (b) not wanting to pick up calls from Montana. Frankly, not wanting to answer calls from Montana sounds a lot more sensible to me. But if it's actually (a), well, I'm still not sure that that counts as the kind of "vicious personal attack" we're supposed to be concerned about here.

Well I'm sure if you've never heard of her, then no one else has, right?

She's conservative.

She's certainly not top of mind, nor even back of mind, for conservatives. And everything that she's published and said in the media makes clear that she's not a conservative, not that that matters one way or the other.

Nope. But, as I said, it makes no difference regardless. Her complaints would sound just as odd if she were Harper's half-sister or something.

Good point. Can you imagin the hate mail Oboma gets????

She has criticized the Cons over the In and Out Scandal. Maybe you haven't heard of her spod, but trust me the PMO is well aware of her. You're either being disingenuous or out of the loop.

Eh? I'm aware that she's criticized the Conservatives – or, at least, I've been aware of it since reading her TorStar story. And I'm not exactly sure why you're an authority on what the PMO is "well aware" of. But even if they were, so what? But anyway, the main point I've been trying to make is what basis does she have for comparing responses to criticism? In my post below, I try to present some research into this question and ask for contrary evidence, in order to assess whether she has any basis for making her claim. I haven't seen any.

This comment by Emily should actually be flagged, since most people probably aren't aware that there people out there stupid enough to believe that someone's "research topics" include X then they must be X themselves. This sort of idiocy is a good example of why it's easy to imagine that McIvor has had some disturbed people e-mail her. It's just unlikely that a disturbed idiot like Emily would be e-mailing McIvor because they are in the same anti-Harper camp.

Following her joining the Liberal ranks, Belinda Stronach was called
"a dipstick – an attractive one, but still a dipstick" by Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman, while Saskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott said "people prostitute themselves for different costs or different prices" and Alberta Conservative Tony Abbott said Stronach had "whored herself out for power."

Anyone can provide quotes of that nature following, say, Emmerson's joing the Conservative ranks? Can you quote a liberal quo alluded to Emmerson as a prostitute?

I don't think so.

Ping

Revealingly, you think that the way to prove that Liberals wouldn't engage in personal attacks is to write something like "call Ryan Sparrow… if you're not Ryan Sparrow". You're probably to thick to realize the irony involved, just as you probably don't realize that throwing around random lines about "changing the channel" make little sense when you're in fact consistently trying to evade the only point which I've been consistently making, namely, that there seems to be no evidence that McIvor has ever engaged in the sort of criticisms of liberals which would enable her to make the sort of comparison which she makes in the article and which her supporters in this thread reiterate? If you can provide some actual substantive evidence to the contrary, that would certainly be helpful. Otherwise you'll just have to continue engaging in personal attacks as a way of defending people who are attacking others for personally attacking.

Do you often make nonsensical noises for no reason at all?

This is meaningless.

Bhahahahah…. you're claiming that I'm "too lazy or stupid to use google" by linking to an article which I already discussed at length in a comment that I posted 55 minutes ago?!!!!!!! Bhahahahahahahahahahahaha. You moron! And I know, I know, your proof that libs like yourself don't engage in personal attacks is calling someone "too lazy or stupid to use google" because of a link which that same person had already found and discussed almost an hour ago!!!!!! Bahahahahahah. Obviously you are too lazy and stupid to even read the words on your computer screen.

And once more….bhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You lazy stupid person. You really thought you would accuse me of being too lazy and stupid to do something that I had actually done an hour before you? Only you're too lazy and stupid to realize that? And you're so stupid that you believe that calling someone lazy and stupid for not doing something that they've already done helps to show that liberals like you don't default to insipid personal attacks? You are so lazy and stupid. bhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

This whole tirade goes to the point of the post. Conservatives seem to take criticisms more personally, and then attack with a level of anger that is wholly inappropriate.

Good day sir.

Yes, that's right, because when someone starts by saying that liberals are less likely to engage in personal attacks than conservatives and then that same person turns around and calls someone "too lazy and stupid" for failing to do someone which the object of their attack had in fact done an hour before hand, no one should bother to point out the hypocrisy involved in that. You may think that calling people "lazy and stupid" is someone just neutral "criticism" and not at all personal in the first place, but the only way to reach that sort of conclusion would seem to be by being some sort of moron. This impression is confirmed by the observation that if you wanted to discuss the substantive issues involved in McIvor's comments, you had every opportunity to do so when I was conducting the actual research required to determine whether her analysis had the necessary empirical basis to give her argument legitimacy. The response of a liberal commenter was then to simply reassert that liberals are less likely to engage in personal attacks and then immediately thereafter assert that I was "too lazy and stupid" to do something which I had in fact done an hour before in the same exact same thread. Given that you feel the need to defend people whose default mode is to accuse people with whom they disagree of laziness and stupidity – for not allegedly not doing precisely what had long-since been done, no less – whereas you feel no need to engage in the actual empirical research necessary to gauge the assertions made in the original post, I think it's fair enough to conclude that you're primarily interested in providing a thin patina of legitimacy to insults and name-calling, and not at all interested in conducting the sort of substantive investigations required to assess actual arguments being advanced.

Amen!

I'm always pleased when liberal's liberal hypocrisy is exposed!

Also, because, being a liberal, you're naturally adverse to "personal attacks",

Not at all. But you should really make up your mind; are you merely interested in substantive empirical research; or are you in fact a snarky troll, who's doing more to make MacIvor's point than you probably realise?

How about those dozens of Liberal supporters who had their brakes cut off and their homes covered with hateful graffitis in the 2008 campaign?

Anyone can pull a report of similar actions against Conservative supporters?