Moonbox

To be honest I don't understand %50+ of Oleg Bach's rants. I can't even comment on his positions or argue with him because I flat out don't understand him.

Here: "We need a presidential order or Congressional legislation that defines exactly what constitutes acceptable degrees of coercive interrogation. Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress. What crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest." Ignatieff - Lesser of Evils So here he's basically saying, "Okay well psychological torture = cool but physical torture = bad." The qualification is RIGHT there and that's what we're talking about. As long as someone's not permanently or visibly harmed then GO AHEAD right???? There's a lot of 'mights' etc in there where he gives himself room to wiggle out, but the fact that he's saying what permissable duress could include makes his position rather clear. Under his broad qualifications, there are a lot of disgusting things that could be done to prisoners. As an intellectual and a statesman, he knows to watch his words and he knows how to be clear. He made himself clear here. No argument. What I find funny is how Ignatieff presented himself in the UK as a champion of family values and then bails out on his wife. It's similar to running a human rights department but not being able to take a strong position against torture. Ignatieff is a man positively DROOLING irony.

It's Ignatieff that's done the dancing. These concerns don't come out of nowhere. The fact that he's made it clear that NOW he is 100% against torture once he started running for politics is rather convenient timing. From what I've read he indicated that he DID at least support psychological torture and sleep deprivation. It's rather scary that the clarification is even needed. You don't need to be a genius to understand how torture fundamentally undermines the rule of law.

That's just a convenient thing to say. Their personal lives are reflective of their character. You've nattered on and on about how great a guy he is and how morally upstanding he is, but when things like his position of torture (supporting it and then back pedalling under public spotlight) and abandoning his wife after pretending to be a pillar of family values come up, apparently they don't matter. Drivel. While it's true they may not affect his ABILITY to govern, it does reflect his decision making process. As far as there 'having to be heartbreak', don't be stupid. Nothing in his achievements have anything to do with heartbreak. There's plenty of men who have achieved FAR FAR FAR more than Ignatieff who are still happily married. More apologist crap from an Ignatieff cheerleader. Keeping your past private is probably the smartest thing you can do. As far as his ambition hurting people, there are big differences between the hurt losing a professional or political contest causes and the hurt felt from leaving the mother of your children. I'll finalize my comments by saying, once again, that as of yet I don't hate Ignatieff. I think he's political scum but I also think Harper is. I simply have HUGE issues when posters like you who barf out biased nonsense 24/7. I can't help but comment.

*Please delete double post*

This is easily the #1 stupidest serious suggestion I've ever read on these forums. It's very clear from this statement and many of your others that the gargantuan effort of THINKING before you post is well beyond you. Do you not see the idiotic contradiction in saying that politicians should do their jobs instead of standing around with an outstretched palm, and then saying that they should be even more heavily subsidized???? Rather than ask people to donate personally you want to FORCE them to pay taxes to subsidize parties that can't get the average joe to open their wallets and donate $50 to??? PT you've once again demonstrated how completely, undeniably and ridiculously one-sided 95% everything you write or suggest has become. The problems with special interest groups is something the CPC has done A LOT to fix. The Chretien Liberals of years ago fundraised almost exclusively with Big Business and raised millions from the corporate world. The CPC legislated to end the corporate lobby donations and it put limits on the amount each person could donate. Now that the corporate feeding trough has been cut off, the Liberals are depending on taxation to keep their meagre hopes alive. You, being the Ignatieff cheerleader you are, all of the sudden think that doubling this subsidy is a good idea. Mhmm........If Ignatieff was the brilliant statesman you say he is, he'll be able to get Liberal fundraising flying. Since you're similarly an Obama cheerleader, do you have any idea how much money the democrats received in donations in 2008? Their fundraising was in the hundreds of millions. He didn't need a subsidy. Subsidizing poorly run political parties is about as smart as subsidizing poorly run corporations.

It's just a funny way of questioning why Liberal cheerleaders are so hot on him right now. Somehow he's the savior of the Liberal Party yet his positions on virtually everything of importance have mirrored Stephen Harper's. Stephen Harper is criticized somehow of being Bush-Lite for these positions even though he's accepted his own failed judgement as well. When Iggy back pedals, however, it's because of his sage and humble nature and not because he's a snake like all the others looking to improve public opinion? RIGHT....... Besides, the guy's been Liberal Leader for like 3 months. He's done next to NOTHING as a politician thus far so we criticize him for what we do know about him. We know he's spent the last 40 years outside of Canada and that he only came back to run for PM. We know he caved into Harper's budget and only managed to put in a farty meaningless 'update' stipulation on it. We know he's about as hard to pin down as a greased up rabbit as far as his positions on most issues. These are the things we'll talk about because they're what we know.

The name really doesn't mean anything. I consider myself fairly liberal as far as social issues go, but I've voted Tory provincially and federally since 2006. What difference does it make what someone calls themself?

You missed the point where the poster was just agreeing with the blogger's feelings about Ignatieff. In review they were well articulated and intelligent arguments, whether or not you agree with them. The fact that the blogger dislikes Harper more is unsurprising if he's speaking from the far left, nor does it change his criticism of Ignatieff. When I criticize Iggy I can also claim that Jack Layton would be far worse. I can criticize Harper at the same time. It doesn't make any of these criticisms any less scathing.

I know, but a lot of the time it saves money. It depends on the house and what sort of renovations are needed. I simply think it's a very important and usually overlooked factor in buying or renting a home. I guess I should have said that I think it would be a good idea for people to hire someone to look at this sort of thing before they purchase rather than implementing new regulations. Yeah it's kind of a catch-22 with the hydro companies. As crown corps they went into debt for billions and were grossly mismanaged, but as private corps they've been mismanaged and they've driven prices up considerably. To be honest I don't really know what to think about the whole thing.

Regardless of how lame the Bush-lite references have become over the last few years given how little there is to support them, I don't see how that in any way defends Ignatieff against the criticism presented.

I think lowering energy usage is a good thing. I like this idea. It may force people to actually do a little work fixing the holes in their home before selling. If the Hydro companies raise prices unfairly, let the government regulate them.

I wonder what her beloved Ignatieff's position is on Israel.

I kind of thought that was funny. Why would you want to get rid of your Canadian passport? I have over a dozen close relatives who have lived in the US for 15+ years and still don't have American passports. What benefit does it provide you other than better eligibility for the draft?

PT you quoted the Christian Science Monitor. That's funny.

You don't think that it was a bit of a stretch for you to say his public 180 reversals in opinion are really just him showing his intellectualism??? Because he taught at Oxford??? Arrogance and elitism mean nothing. Saying a politician is arrogant/elitist is like saying a baby is innocent. Means nothing. Opportunist? Well I think there's something to be said to that with Ignatieff. I think you'd really be fooling yourself if you didn't think that living outside of the country for about 38 years and only returing in 2006 to make a bid for the leadership of the country wasn't SLIGHTLY opportunistic. It doesn't make him an evil man, but it certainly makes him look opportunistic. Now as far as his position on torture is concerned, I understand he put some fairly strict qualifications on its use. On the other hand, he demonstrates a lot of the same judgement as Harper and I simply feel the need to bring up the comparison. Since many anti-Harperites point out his positions on Iraq, Afghanistan, Quebec as a nation etc as evidence that he's a Canada-hating butt-buddy of George Bush, I find it necessary to show how much Ignatieff's judgement mirrored Harper's own. In the case of torture, he's been quite a bit more supportive of its use than even Harper. I never said anything REMOTELY similar to that. I said that Ivy League schools aren't necessarily shining beacons of morality. I also said I'm a little hesitant to know that Ignatieff spent most of his life OUTSIDE of Canada and only until recently returning to run for leadership. That's kind of where you have to start questioning how realistic your views of him are. When you say you're a FAN of Ignatieff's and you start buying his merchandise (if you got them from the library I apologize), it raises the possibility that it's more Obama type worship than anything else.

It's the nature of the game. I don't think it's a huge deal or anything. When you have millions of people and opinions to appeal to, you have to try and please as many people as possible in as many ways as possible. Naturally, there are going to be some reversals of positions and some giant changes in policy vs election rhetoric. It's more a matter as to how and why that position was reversed. When it's something like Harper appointing Senators prior to a non-confidence vote, that's pretty justifiable. On the other hand, making it clear that the economy wasn't going to crap and that there would be no deficit, but then announcing a $40B deficit a month later, that's a bit rich. I get why he did it, but I also get why Canadians don't trust him, because in this case he was 100% full of ****. If it helped keep Dion out, I'm okay with it but I knew better anyways. That made me laugh. I think there are some distinctions within the budget between parties but this is a very rare case where the panic button has caused a further blurring of the lines.

What angle? That he flip flops and farts around like a politician? They all do it the exact same. Most people, however, take it for what it is: flip flopping depending on the climate of public opinion. Disguising it as some sort of enlightened intellectualism is just blind and naive hero-worship. Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard recruit intelligent and prestigious academic minds. I'm fairly certain that there's no rigorous screening process to determine how 'wishy-washy' they are. The fact that he taught at these schools is impressive, there's no doubt about that, but they really have nothing to do with how steadfastly he upholds his ideals. You've probably read his 'lesser of evils' analysis, but there are interesting things to take out of that. Ignatieff appears to believe that pre-emptive wars, coercive interrogation, targetted assasinations and 'certain' types of torture should be legitimate ways to combat terrorism. In many ways he's very similar to our current boob of a PM. PT I don't want you to get the wrong message from me. I don't dislike Ignatieff. I actually like him better than Harper. I was thrilled when he became Liberal leader because he pulls the Liberals far enough to the right for me to actually consider voting for them again. I simply think that you're in fantasy land when you're talking about him. You make him out to be the messiah, ignore his faults and proclaim him as if he's the smartest man ever born. It's silly.

Alright PT I mostly ignored everything you said until I read this. If Israel were at ALL interested in genocide there wouldn't be a Palestinian left alive in the area. We'd see massive death camps and hundreds of thousands of dead. Israel, if it so wished, could wipe the area clean (including its neighbours in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc). There really is THAT big a disparity in power. Now, given this simple fact, I find it rather ridiculous that you'd use the term 'genocide'. I won't argue that the Palestinian people nowadays have it rough, but maybe if you lived under constant threat of random rocket attack originating from just outside your doorstep you'd have some perspective.

He's a LOT like Stephen Harper in that he's a squirmy politician first, and an idealist second. Changing your official position on an ideal/moral issue does NOT come from Ivy League schools. Ivy League schooling does not teach you to say you support torture and then 'change your mind' after it becomes clear it's a highly unpopular position in the country you're trying to run for office in. Schooling certainly broadens your perspective of things and helps you think differently, but Ignatieff's political 180's are no different than Stephen Harper's. They are what they are: Damage control/flip flopping and nothing less. Anyone can make a skinhead look stupid. All you have to do is ask the skinhead why he feels the way he does. As soon as the fool starts talking, 99% of people would be able to see how blind/stupid he is. You wouldn't even have to say anything yourself. That's hardly a dazzling intellectual feat. because most people would feel the need to provide a detailed explanation of why skinheads are ignorant and intolerant right? Right??? Mhmmm.... With an erudite like Ignatieff in charge, I don't see how Canada could go wrong. I mean, he'll be able to change his mind on everything and that's totally expected of him because he went to an Ivy League school.......

I think the ideologies were really blurred. The only really clear ideology as far as I could tell was the NDP and Jack Layton's. He made it very clear that anything the government does should be done for the working boob and at the cost of anyone in a strong financial position. The Liberal and Conservative campaign were both just silly, crowd-pleasing rhetoric.

It's too bad we don't have a fiscally conservative option out there...we have right wing social wack jobs or more socially liberal alternatives who are crying for more spending....

While I really didn't understand half of your post, I don't think Vincente Fox has any clue what's going to happen with trade 'in the future'. Canada is and will continue to be the biggest trading partner the US has for a long time. There are about 1000 reasons for this, but I'll leave you to ponder on that.

Value is value, like I said. There's certainly perspective to it, but you can't talk about it in the sense that value = dollar value OR value = benefits it provides. Value is a measure of how much benefit you gained for the price you paid. I don't feel a GM or Chrysler provides value because I know that something like 33% of the cost of the vehicle is directly tied into paying pensions and benefits. I could probably get a similar performance vehicle from a Japanese automaker for 25% less. That's value. I'm actually quite okay with buying shirts made in China, because i know that I save more money buying these imports than I'd ever see if we had our own protected domestic shirt industry and I had to pay twice as much for the same silly shirt. That's fine but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I said that I think the term 'skilled labor' is over-used. Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I mentioned US auto-makers because they sold North Americans absolutely garbage vehicles for 30 years until foreigners entered the market. This is one of the best examples of why free trade is great. Now we're not getting ripped off with cars that need repairs every 6 months.

Value is value. If the government is throwing money at manufactorers that have proven they cannot compete and make products nobody wants, you're only giving them money to throw it away. It's the same as the ethanol subsidy. Sure, it keeps farmers employed, but it costs everyone else money and it provides ZERO net benefit to the economy or even really anything worthwhile to the environment. There's good stimulus and there's welfare stimulus. The term 'skilled labor' is often pretty misused. A lot of the 'skilled labor' jobs out there could be performed by monkeys out of highschool with no training. There certainly are skilled labor jobs that require extensive skills, but factory work is not necessarily skilled labor. Yeah like with American cars over the last 30 years right? North American companies are just as likely to rip us off as foreigners.