This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 32 comments subscribe
sorted by:
best

[–]haikarate12   70 points71 points  (4 children)

So much crazy, but this really sticks out for me.

Goes into detail around his chastity and abstinence and a National Post story about it.

WTF? What 31 year old politician feels the need to discuss his 'chastity and abstinence' to a national newspaper??? Tried to find it online but I'm sure postmedia has that thing buried so it'll never see the light of day.

Albertans are insane for supporting this psycho.

Edit: FOUND IT! No sex, please, we're Reformers: In this age of presidential promiscuity, an `eccentric minority' of politicos chooses chastity. Glen McGregor dares to ask why.

[–]Gay_Diesel_Mechanic   24 points25 points  (0 children)

I have two theories. First one is that Kenney has a micropenis and has decided to abstain for that reason.

Second is that he's super religious but a closet homosexual. It's the same reason gay people became priests back in the day. I did read somewhere that it's well known in the political community that he's a non practicing homosexual. But obviously there's no proof.

[–]ohkatiedear   12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is...my goodness. I'm not sure what to say about this. Thank you for digging it up.

[–]wonder_shot_   0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just dancing along that NoFap/incel line.

[–]friendly_green_ab   31 points32 points  (1 child)

People should automatically distrust and dislike anyone who questions basic human rights.

[–]PonyFlare   3 points4 points  (0 children)

If only they actually did.

[–]Dudejustnah   5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sick of this type of thinking/ mentality

[–]eXAt88   26 points27 points  (0 children)

This man is crazy

[–]snufflesthefurball   12 points13 points  (0 children)

And let's not forget the globalists putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay.

[–]AngstyZebra   2 points3 points  (0 children)

What's his problem?

If there is a UN plot to stop parents from beating their children, what's the downside?

Why would anyone want more children to be harmed?

[–]thatsme8008   2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hey look, its a bunch of comments by some smug, self congratulatory lefties.

[–]mo60000   6 points7 points  (0 children)

WTH.

[–]Ghoulius-Caesar   5 points6 points  (0 children)

This guy has so deep dark secrets. I just wanna know em. K.D. Lang might know one.

[–]gnufie   1 point2 points  (0 children)

At 46 seconds in the third video he says taint.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What? That's crazy talk

[–]amostsilentvoice   0 points1 point  (0 children)

At this point, sounds like he flat out just wants child abuse to happen.

[–]Twosixx   -21 points-20 points  (13 children)

Press progress is extremely partisan therefore I’ll take anything they say with a grain of salt. Went back to April of 2015 and not a single article criticizing the NDP. While mainstream media might be terrible (most notably the Sun), they at least will criticize all parties.

[–]haikarate12   36 points37 points  (10 children)

So don't take their word for it, here's the link to the video of the hour-long speech where you can see Kenney saying EVERYTHING the article refers to.

As they say, straight from the horses's mouth. There are even handy timestamps in the description!

[–]Twosixx   -22 points-21 points  (9 children)

My comment was directed at press progress as a whole, not one article. There is truth in their articles however in many of them a person has to sift through the bias, which in the case of this publication is far left.

Hell there is some truth in “Industrial Society and Its Future” but the extreme bias in that paper makes it very difficult decipher.

As I stated in another comment below the issue lies in we currently live in a society where many take anything they read as cold hard fact.

There are three sides to every story: side A, side B, and the truth.

[–]cluelessmuggle   21 points22 points  (8 children)

So your comment was not about the topic, and wasn't intended to contribute to the discussion of this issue?

[–]Arch____Stanton   18 points19 points  (1 child)

So your comment was not about the topic

It was a deflection. He could not debate the topic so he tries to force the issue off topic.
It is desperation.

[–]Twosixx   -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

See the comment somewhere below about using a 20 year old video and ask yourself the questions I posed in that comment.

Here’s your debate if you don’t feel like scrolling down:

Do you have the exact same views and beliefs you had 20 years ago? Was this piece followed up on to see if his views and beliefs on this subject are the same now as they were? Did the agency reporting this video do their due diligence in reporting the facts and current stance on THIS issue? Or did they let their own political stance on the matter dictate the article in question.

I can tell you for damn sure there are things I thought and believed in 20 years ago but find idiotic now.

Had the agency in question went and investigated thoroughly after digging up this video then that would be a different story. However since press progress already has some questions about its credibility and integrity due to its close ties with a political party which lends to its bias that it should make sure the research is solid. As this article sits right now it’s more of an “attack” article than an article that explores the issue and attempts to inform the populace of the current stance on the issue.

Kenney is still an untrustworthy idiot and it will be a cold day in hell when I’d vote for him but that doesn’t change the double standard set in this sub about how we are not to trust anything post media but press progress is the proverbial word of god when both are guilty of letting their bias drive their articles.

[–]Twosixx   -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

My comment was on the credibility of the source which if partisan would always be part of the issue. Left leaning can spin something one way, the right another.

Without that question of credibility based of bias, something like (god forbid) “The Rebel” can be taken as true and credible.

[–]SketchySeaBeast   17 points18 points  (4 children)

There is literally a video of him saying it, how does the site's credibility affect his being a jackass? Can the media put a spin on a direct video of him?

[–]Twosixx   -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

From 1999 so... 20 years ago?

Can you honestly tell me you have the exact same views and believe in the exact same things now that you did 20 years ago? I can tell you for sure I don’t.

This is where the credibility comes into play.

I may not like Jason Kenney at all and cannot vote for him due to not trusting him farther than I can throw him but the whole “don’t vote UPC cause Kenney is bad” platform coming from the left instead of running on the strength of their platform causes me not to trust them either.

[–]haikarate12   16 points17 points  (0 children)

What leads you to believe that Jason Kenney has changed? What has he done to earn the benefit of the doubt? Three days ago Kenney was still refusing to apologize for his part in taking away the rights of people with AIDS. And why do you think he's changed his views on abortion? Kenney has been propped up by abortion groups RightNow and The Wilberforce Project They've quietly put many pro-life candidates who want to take away abortion rights into different ridings.

Kenney has not changed. Not one fucking iota.

[–]SketchySeaBeast   7 points8 points  (1 child)

So a news agency should be limited to 10 years back?

Has he apologized for his remarks? The recent radio interview seems to indicate he's not actually repentant for his views.

And I would like that as well, I wish Rachel had emphasized her platform in the debate rather than attacking Kenney. I think it is strong. Its unfortunate that everyone feels the way to power is through the UCP.

I don't see any harm in bringing his jackasery to light at the same time though.

[–]Twosixx   -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Less of limiting timeframe, more of investigating based off timeframe.

Had the agency in question found this video, investigated it, then asked what his comments are today on the video then no issue with the timing of the video. I know personally there are things I’ve done or said in the past that would get met with “I was an idiot. Plain and simple.” Hell at one point in time I believed in conspiracy theories.

While it doesn’t change the fact that Kenney is in fact untrustworthy and an idiot, it does change how the integrity and validity of a news agency can be viewed. This is especially true for an agency who already has those questions being brought up due to their connections with a political party. To be honest I’d vote Fildebrandt over Kenney cause at least Fildebrandt would tell me how he’s screwing me.

But yes, running on the “attack Kenney platform” is doing more harm than good for the NDP. You’d figure they would have all learned from the last federal election when both the PC and NDP lost due to that same tactic. It is very much American style politics which many people despise, which turns us undecided voters away from the parties involved.

[–]TheFluxIsThis   12 points13 points  (1 child)

Just because you know a publication is partisan doesn't mean everything they report is false. Whether it's PressProgress or The Sun, it's worth it to fact check before dismissing something.

[–]Twosixx   1 point2 points  (0 children)

The issue lies in the wading through the bias to determine how much is the truth and how much is exacerbated.

And we do unfortunately live in society now where many people take anything they read to be straight fact.