Moonbox

You start half the threads on the forum. I'd really be blocking myself out of the discussions and as I mentioned before, it's fun picking apart unintelligent arguments. Is this another "NO YOU!" response? I'm sorry. That was rhetoric. What I should have said that while many Liberal posters here are respected and left alone generally, your support for the party borders on hysteria and the contempt and derision you receive is reflective of that. Like I said, 18000+ posts of pro-Liberal exaggerations, omissions and distortions in 3 years indicates at a VERY emotional attachment to the party. Have you or your family ever run for the Liberals in Winnipeg? I wonder... If you think ~900 posts in a year in any way affects my personal life, I am genuinely sad for you and the effect 6000+ posts a year has on yours.

Once again, the best response you come up with is, "NO YOU". A day without responding to your posts? You've started FIVE threads that are at the top of the list right now and they're totally inane. It's hard not to respond to your crap because you SATURATE the whole forum. As for personal, get over it. You've made a clown of yourself, the whole community makes fun of you for it and has labelled you for the hack that you are. You're too emotionally invested in the Liberal brand and 18000 posts of partisan Liberal garbage in 3 years shows that. You're trying WAY hard and you care WAY too much. My woman is the centre of my universe. The Liberals, on the other hand, are the centre of yours.

Check my post count and check yours. Tell me which of us is obsessive. The intellectual voids that are the majority of your posts draw my mockery like a moth to the flame. I'm so sorry it bothers you, but I get kicks out picking apart stupid/blind/partisan rhetoric and skewed facts. I don't save it just for you, you're just the most dogmatic and persistent of my targets. I eagerly await another, "I know you are but what am I?" response.

In your own words: I'm not personalizing, I'm merely pointing out my observations of your behavior. Dobbin Derangement Syndrome? You've actually named your condition? I'm not upset about it, but I do feel bad for you and how hard you try.

Bush led us out of what recession? 2001? or this one?

I don't think there's any question of this. The US is running a deficit like 20x higher than ours and their debt/GDP ration blows ours out of the water. The business advantages they've held will dissapear quickly when they realize they have to pay back their debt.

Keep in mind that Bush led the US into the recession and started the massive stimulus spending in the first place. Obama has f'd the US tax payer, but Bush led the way.

Jdobbin is this kind of like the "I know you are but what am I?" response? If you're going to mock someone, at least do it originally. You're the newsbot of the Liberal party and that's what you're known for here. Sorry. Don't get so upset about it.

This is a total misrepresentation of what he said anyways. Nice try Topaz. What he said was: At a Montreal event, Flaherty expressed "cautious optimism that a global economic recovery may not be far behind." What he said means nothing because it can be taken in any direction the listener wants to interpret it.

It's what people try to exaggerate into scandal/crisis that gets ridiculous. Jdobbin does quite clearly spend EXCESSIVE amounts of time cruising the internet looking for something he can use to hopefully make Harper look bad and he often presents what he finds in the most unfavorable light with glaring omissions. Do people remember the magazine/newspaper subsidies, where a right-wing Alberta publication received something like $27,000 (among millions dolled out to various other publications) and Jdobbin was presenting it as though it were a travesty worth discussing at length? He's like a spam bot with a really good filter and an anti-Harper algorithm.

It's a way it CAN be done while avoiding the convenient definition of 'torture' that Ignatieff and many throughout the world have taken. Nice try Jdobbin, but Guantanemo interrogations and Canadian police interrogations operate on an entirely different set of rules. To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. (from the Lesser Evils essay) The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions. Ignatieff was ANYTHING but clear on what he does or doesn't support, other than that it may be necessary to do 'evil' things. Here's his position in 2006: Like Elshtain, I am willing to get my hands dirty, but unlike her, I have practical difficulty enumerating a list of coercive techniques that I would be willing to have a democratic society inflict in my name. Basically he's saying, "I'd do some nasty things, but I wouldn't be willing to list them formally on paper and institutionalize it." Ignatieff on torture- 2006

It goes a little further in military prisons. Imagine being allowed to finally go to sleep only to be awoken 20 minutes later with a cold bucket of dirty water. There's such a thing as psychological torture. You can totally destroy someone's mind without harming the body. I'm not criticizing Ignatieff's position, because in large part I agree with his lesser of evils approach (to a limited extent). What miffs me about it is that he didn't stick to his guns and he totally reversed his original position -- that and the apologists reinterpreting his opinions on his behalf.

The economy is still crapping and it's worse than most people think.

Don't try reasoning with him. He's beyond anyone's help. Jdobbin's a tireless and rabidly over-zealous Liberal hack clinging desperately to the LPC brand and terrified if it's not running the show. To him, the LPC is always right and he closes his eyes, plugs his ears and screams loudly to anyone who says otherwise. Oh, and for the record, I'm not personalizing here because I'm just stating my observations of his behaviour.

Bingo. That's pretty much the number one and overwhelming reason.

Wow there's a mouthful. Did someone help you come up with that?

KingIggy, other than spamming that silly list, as far as I can tell you've been unable and completely ineffective in backing up ANY of your points on this forum nor have you been willing/able to engage in any sort of intellectual debate. I'm going to guess unable. If all you're going to do is rant nonsense you're going to quickly get bored here. There's only so many names you can call us before you get tired and none of us are taking you seriously.

I think that's a good idea, but they should make sure that there's no significant conflict of interest in regards to close friends, relatives etc.

THAT is funny!

Sorry if I used a feminine term for idiot. I did a terrible thing.

The CPC needs the support of SOMEBODY to act. That support happens to come from the Liberals. As they have veto on everything the CPC does, I'd say they do have a defacto place at the table. Like I said before, I'm not blaming the Liberals over the CPC. I'm saying that it's hypocritical for the Liberals to criticize a deal they voted for rather than try to have it amended. Here's an interesting idea. Remember you going off on Flaherty for criticizing Ontario's capital investment taxes? Well they're STILL one of the highest in the world and these are SPECIFICALLY the taxes that discourage new investment in the economy. Look how things turn around. You don't want to get into a monetary policy debate amidst all of this. He was in charge of the deal. When he made the deal with GM USA when it came to Canada it was a take it or leave it sort of thing. Harper had about as much to do with writing it as Ignatieff did. He's guilty of accepting a crap deal, but he didn't have a lot of choice did he? It's either we blow billions on CAW moochers or we lose 85000 jobs. Hmm... I'll tell you about a better deal in a second. As for what Harper could have done a year ago to save GM, there was nothing. There's nothing a government can do when a company has a 2:1 debt:equity ratio and can't meet its short term requirements. What would you say about an investment where the share price would have to go from $1 to $125 to recover the investment. What would you say about an investment where: Under the deal, GM will have an initial public offering in 2010. Canadian governments must divest 35 per cent of their stock within three years, 65 per cent within six years, and the rest within eight years – regardless of the share price and potential for taxpayers' losses. Officials said that there is a certain flexibility around the timing of the share sale, but those minimums must be met regardless of the state of the economy at the time. Canada must divest GM shares What do you think the odds are that we'll be able to sell GM shares after 8 years for $125? That's not an investment. That's a joke. It was thinly disguised as that. You could have done that with a fair deal though. North American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay billions to bankrupt pensions that helped force the company into bankruptcy in the first place. That's Obama pandering to the UAW who happens to be pretty much his biggest sponsor. The UAW was probably the biggest reason the company went bankrupt in the first place and there's no reason why taxpayers should subsidize their greed and mindless manual labour. You could also drop the requirement to divest which guarantees we won't get more than a fraction back of what we put in. Anything else you want to know?

He could be jailed as a defector. It's unlikely that the current Russian government would resort to KGB style tactics and send a hit-squad to chase down a low-level agent 12 years later.

Take it a step further. I know you're capable of making the GIANT leap in logic here. What guarantees do you think Canada was going to get from a bankrupt manufacturer? They have no equity. They have twice as much debt as equity. You cannot get a solid guarantee from that. Not only does GM have nothing to back up the debt, the terms of the agreements were set by the Americans, specifically, Obama. Once again, what sort of plan do you think we were going to come up with in a year? Seriously? Experts have been GUARANTEEING us GM's collapse since the turn of the century but you can't just say, "We need more diversified manufacturing." and get that in less than a year. It doesn't work that way. Stop getting so butt-hurt about it. I'm not saying that it's their fault. Maybe some of the other people here are but the Tories are the ones negotiating the agreement. With that said, the Opposition (Liberals included), were demanding the stimulus and they voted FOR the stimulus. Given that the Americans were dicating the terms of bailing out the automakers, and given that the Liberals have voted for the spending, it's ridiculous for you and Ignatieff to turn around and criticize the Tories for it after the fact. That's all I'm saying, but you and I have already argued about this stuff at length. I'm saying the deal is a stinker for taxpayers in the USA and Canada. It could have been much better. Blame the terms of the deal on Obama though, rather than hacking it up and blaming it on Harper. The Canadian government had the choice to play ball or not play ball, and there wasn't going to be a lot of negotiating. We got as fair a deal as the Americans did, but Obama sold the Americans out and by extension us too. I believe that Canada and the US should have bailed out the automakers, but ONLY as an investment. Throwing money at useless Union benefits, and getting suckered into aweful equity agreements should never have been part of the deal. If we did this properly, and the governments came out with a functional and profitable GM in 15 years, we might be able to recoup most of our losses. The way it is now we're going to get nothing back and honest Canadians are going to be subsidizing greedy union pensions and benefits. This is a TOTAL loss for taxpayers and it's all a result of Obama pandering to auto-based swing states.

What he was doing was about as criminal as the lowliest of CSIS agents as far as we know. Again, what criminal activity was he a part of? He was on the wrong side of the Cold War. That's all. I agree with that at least.

At least they're sticking to their guns. You can't really call them partisans for abiding by their own rules until they start airing LPC commercials.