The Herb Gray School

by Aaron Wherry

Steven Fletcher, Oct. 19. Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member’s question.

John Baird, Oct. 19. Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to my friend from northern Ontario that I do not agree with the premise of his question.

Ed Fast, Oct. 19.  Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question.

Stephen Harper, Oct. 19. Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with the premise of that question.

Denis Lebel, Oct. 18. Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question.

John Baird, Oct. 17. Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to that member or to the House that I categorically reject the premise of the member’s question.

Brent Rathgeber, Oct. 17. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with the premise of that question.

John Baird, Oct. 7. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Winnipeg Centre that it will not come as any surprise to him that I disagree with the premise of his question.

Eve Adams, Sept. 28. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I reject the premise of the question.

Dave MacKenzie, Sept. 28. Madam Speaker, the very first thing I would say to my good friend from Cape Breton—Canso is that his premise is dead wrong.

Kyle Seeback, Sept. 28. Madam Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that our justice initiatives are not in the best interests of Canadians. 

Gary Goodyear, Sept. 27. Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of that question.

Steven Fletcher, June 23. Mr. Speaker, the premise of the preamble of the question is completely false.

Michelle Rempel, June 22. Mr. Speaker, I have to reject the premise of that question because our government is not ignoring this issue.

John Baird, June 9. I completely reject the premise of the question by the member opposite.

Mike Lake, June 7. Madam Speaker, the premise of the question is completely incorrect.

The Herb Gray School

  1. Mindnumbingly difficult as it is to believe, It appears  they practice this crap before they actually stand up and utter the crap.

    PWs was absolutely right. These guys wont change one iota the way they conduct business; they were tactically obssesed when they were in minority, they’re tactically obssesed now.

  2. Well, we are getting somewhere.  Rejecting the premise of a question is a tad more honest than answering with unrelated talking points and random bafflegab.  Assuming, of course, that the question being asked truly doesn’t have a reasonable premise.

    • Unless as you say rejecting the premise of the question is yet another tiresome tactic on the behalf of a tactically obssesed govt – which it certainly appears to be – in which case they might as well not bother. The day they show the door to 90% of the party bagmen, sychophants , yesmen and spin merchants in Ottawa can’t come soon enough for me.

      • I did leave an out for myself in the third sentence of my post. :)

  3. Mr. Harper rejected any number of premises during the election “debates”.
    It seems to have caught on.
    Of course, fact-checking of a premise or its’ rejection takes time and effort.
    I’m sure we’ll get around to it.

  4. “premise – a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn: a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning”

    Just a PC way of calling BS on their facts.

    • Or it may be a CPC way of refusing to deal with the facts.

    • “Just a PC way of calling BS on their facts. ”

      LOL…that’s good enough to have come out of the mouth of Baird or his sock puppet Tony.

      Using  automatic tactical dismissal of  opposing premises is not calling BS, it is BS.

      • Well I just skimmed through some of the links, and really, some of the questions/statements are downright silly.

        • Some of them are. For instance, while I dislike the language of “rejecting” the premise, I’d agree with Steven Fletcher in the first one that the premise of the question doesn’t hold.

          Some of them, however, aren’t. For instance, Mr. Harper’s rejection of the premise seems more designed to avoid dealing with the facts of the question, or pretty much every time Mr. Baird has the temerity to reject the premise with absolutely no reason why it should be rejected.

    • I reject the premise of your assertion.  Two can play this game.

      • I feel so rejected :-(
         
        Have to admit, the suggestion by Martin to appoint Clement as ambassador to Hans Island on the premise he has been a bad boy was funny.

  5. Stephen Harper during the televised election debate, I reject the truth of that accusation.

  6. This post would make a whole lot more sense if the question asked was also posted.

    As it is, the only obfuscation appears to be Wherry’s

    • See all that red text for the name? That’s called a link.
      If you put your little arrow thingy over it and poke the left button on that little slide around remote thing by your keyboard, it’ll magically show you context! 

      Ain’ this interweb thingy a hoot?

      • Yes, you’re correct Thwim, all the links are there. And I suppose Wherry neglected inclusion of all the “when-did-you stop-beating-your-wife”-type questions because this darn-web-thingy has space limitations?

        Go on, read the preceding questions and see how answerable they are!

        • You should try that yourself. Most of them are quite answerable, and on occasion, such as the one answered by Steven Fletcher I pointed out in a post above, answered quite well.

          On other occasions, such as any time John Baird speaks, avoided or answered not at all, even though quite answerable with a simple “Yes”, or “No”.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *