Moonbox

I think you've crossed the line here more than he has.

The Americans can have him.

I wouldn't even go that far. He's playing politics like everyone else does. At least he's not saying he supports exporting asbestos without labelling it dangerous.....

Most likely yes. It's really sad but giving them money really only multiplies the problems. Hopefully they find her, but I doubt it...

WELL NOW! This is an interesting surprise. At any rate, I agree. The only thing I'd like to add is it'll be interesting to see if anyone tries to spin this into a big issue. He basically said he doesn't like the export of asbestos, so at least we know how he stands personally. The fact that he won't confirm it now is likely due to, like he said, some sort of policy bog. Politics politics politics. You can hardly fault him and not everyone else, however, because it's not like ANY party is or has done anything to change things.

As I said before, I enjoy picking apart poorly formed and biased arguments. Just found it funny that you omitted the sentence saying exactly WHAT the attack was. I would think that's the most important part of the whole story. You didn't and as a self proclaimed Liberal partisan, it leads us to wonder why. I didn't say he was partisan. I said he was a Liberal MP. I said it was not news that federal parties are bickering. I criticize your perspective on things. I don't have anything to say about you personally other than I think it's sad how blind you are to Liberal criticism and how unrealistic your view of politics are. If that gets me suspended, so be it, but I think it's more a matter of you being constantly discredited and ridiculed for your VERY compromised postings and opinions. Keep hoping.

Afghanistan shouldn't have happened to begin with, the question is what do you do now that you're there?

That's your argument? It's not trivial because I come on here and tell you it's trivial? You're really hung up on the whole personalization thing aren't you? All I'm doing is making fun of your obvious bias. Are you even going to claim you take a fair perspective when you post things like this? I dare you to. Once again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I didn't blame the Speaker. What I said is that parliamentary bickering is hardly exciting news and that you deliberately omitted relevant details from what you posted (just like the magazine grant post). You cut out the sentence where it explained EXACTLY what the attacks were (calling Ignatieff a hypocrite) and tried to pass it off as if it was something worse. Not to deny anything happened. I responded to clarify how misleading and politically charged your posts were. Is it the 'rolling eyes', the mockery or sarcasm that leads you to that belief? Flying off the handle? My personalization is VERY tame. That's generally the angle you take when I've hit the mark and you know you can't defend yourself. If I get suspended for taking you to task for being a fanatical and totally unobjective Liberal Partisan, so be it. Like I said, it's entertaining to pick your dubious/misleading arguments apart and watch you get into a huff over it. If we're talking emotions, you rule the day in that regard. The incredible effort you take to dig up anything anti-CPC is VERY personal and your defence for the Liberal Party on all sorts of issues is beyond denial.

I really just don't even understand why we'd even stay there at this point. We're just establishing and supporting a draconic and primitive fundamentalist islamic government. Isn't that what we had there before???

I don't think that's what he was saying man. I think he was assuming that you're attacking the Afghan mission altogether. For the record, I AM attacking the Afghan mission if this is the sort of thing we're supporting. This isn't a 'culture' that we need to respect. There is NOTHING cultural about abusing and subjugating women. They're valued like animals in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. It makes me want to puke.

See my previous quote. I told you exactly what you omitted. I'm also not arguing against the speaker. I'm mocking how you surf the internet what seems to be enormous portions of the day to find anything you possibly can to support the Liberals and criticize the CPC. When you can't find something worthwhile and obvious, you find something trivial, LIKE THIS, and try and twist it into some sort of newsworthy story way bigger or badder than it actually is. I didn't say he's unfair. I'm saying that this is hardly the outrage or worthwhile news you're making it out to be. There's nothing interesting/surprising about a LIBERAL speaker (elected by the majority opposition) reprimanding a Tory MP for calling the Liberal Leader a hypocrite. Again, I'm just mocking how desperately hard you're crusading on behalf of the Liberal Party. Liberal hack is about the worst you'll get from me. The rest of the 'personal attacks' I direct your way generally criticize your conclusions and your deliberate efforts to ignore anything that doesn't support your religion the Liberal party. Take whatever satisfaction you get from thinking you're getting under my skin. The fact is I get a laugh out of watching you squirm/avoid/ignore/plug your ears when people unravel and knock down your often dubious claims and conclusions. Let's look at what you've dug up in the last few days. There was the story of the $27,000 of help a western magazine received (clearly the PM was involved with such a giant sum of money) and now we have the SHOCKING story of a Conservative MP calling Ignatieff a hypocrite after being warned not to....WHAT SCANDALS!!! You're trying so hard, but you're failing so badly. Please man, no personal attack intended, YOU MUST see how silly you're making yourself look right? This stuff you're digging up...it's garbage news...The more of this junk you throw the community's way the less likely ANYONE is going to take you seriously even when you DO have a legitimate and well-reasoned point to make. By now you've so clearly labelled yourself as living, eating and breathing LPC that it's impossible to see ANY objectivity in your posts. With this you lose any credibility you might otherwise have. I don't think you're a dumb guy, I just think your unquestioned support for the LPC is far beyond rational. It's VERY emotional.

I'm mocking your post. YOU don't get it. I'm mocking the depth to which you'll plumb the internet to find everything and anything that can be in any ways construed as anti-CPC, no matter how trivial. You've turned it into a crusade and now you've take to obscuring and omitting relevant facts. You failed to mention here that the Speaker Peter Milliken is a Liberal MP. The Tory MP in question has been warned for accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues. THAT'S the personal attacks we're talking about here. Like the Liberal hack you are, however, you deliberately left out the sentence where they explained they were only criticizing Ignatieff's hypocrisy, because you'd like to spin that they're attacking his personal life or something. Nice try. The news is thus: Liberal Speaker threatens to suspend Tory MP for criticizing Liberal Leader for hypocrisy. When you give the FULL story, it's even less interesting, but that doesn't do anything to promote your Bible Thumping Liberal cheerleading, so you omit details to fudge the story.

He didn't claim to be American. He said 'we' in an American publication so as to avoid being disregarded as a foreigner in what he was writing about. If Americans thought they were being preached to by a Canadian they would have scoffed at what he was saying. Unless he has American citizenship it's pretty hard for him to claim that. What about him? Is he like...some biblical figure or something? Is it not possible that he wrote and spoke of freedom in an entirely different world and context? What's more important? The right to live in freedom of persecution for your religion/race/sexual orientation or the right to commit it? What a terrible thing for Ignatief to ask a question like that....

I think it's fair to be upset about this law. We give far too little credit in the strength of women to shape society. You can call me sexist all you want, but it's not the women who are committing terrorism. The overwhelmingly vast majority (almost all) of the terrorists are men and they come almost exclusively from countries where women have no rights. Unless women have these rights, terrorism will continue to grow and breed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia etc...If the West is serious about turning this country around this is absolutely an area in which they need to fear. All they're doing otherwise is overthrowing a dangerous, rotten and backwards Taliban government and using our money to prop up and support an equally rotten and backwards government.

More boring, trivial and meaningless 'news' brought to us by our very own Liberal zealout. Next up, Jdobbin will dish out the dirt on the private lives of Tory MP's extended family! Headline: Jim Flaherty's second cousin's daughter got a tatoo! Stay tuned for more!

I think it's fair to criticize Ignatieff as a convenient Canadian etc, but I really think you guys are off the mark labelling him as an 'American'. He lived in the US for a couple of years to teach at a prestigious University. Harper has more pro-American in him than Ignatieff does. Harper's speeches before becoming CPC leader were ridiculous. Only a special type of hack can criticize a man for questioning the US's protection of the right to baseless, ignorant, hurtful and sometimes violent hate.

Please. If anything this BLOGGER makes Ignatieff look good. Ignatieff said most develloped countries are intelligent/reasonable enough to understand where to draw the line on freedom of speech. Namely, when someone publicly starts inciting baseless, ignorant and sometimes violent racial/gay/religious hate, there's absolutely no purpose in preserving that freedom. The majority of Americans, however, have decided that the Constitution is some sort of second Bible and follow it with the same sort of blind zeal. Thus, even though the rest of the civilized world understands how harmful public hate can be and how there are LITERALLY NO benefits to preserving the freedom to commit it, the Americans would rather follow an archaic document that's totally out of context with the reality of today. Spin that guys.

Jdobbin I'm not going to respond again to this thread after this because you're like a broken record. I'm not blaming the Liberals for the deficit. I'm saying that up until now everything the Liberals did, said or promised indicated increases in spending. The increased program spending since 2006 is totally 100% Harper's fault. Stop saying I'm blaming the Liberals because I'm not. What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less. If the Liberals were against the spending increases, in the 2008 election they would have said they were going to reign in Harper's extra spending and return to fiscal responsibility. There was ZERO mention of that. All they mentioned was $85B in NEW spending. They spent like mad before Harper and they were demanding spending in December. If I'm speculating, it's based on THAT, whereas your speculating is based on.....nothing. Wait...it's based on the LPC of 14 years ago. I'm not defending Harper. I think he's a fool and I think that more every day. I'm not defending his spending increases. What I AM doing is calling you out for the Liberal party hack that you are. The fact that you would even TRY to say that the Liberals would have cancelled Harper's spending increases to finance their own $85B worth of election spending promises is a perfect example of it. First, the LPC spending promises were FAR beyond anything Harper had already spent. Second, they never mentioned there would be any cuts. It's all just propaganda and misinformation for you. I don't even know who you're trying to fool. It looks like you're fooling yourself more than anything. The 1995-1996 spending cuts are NOT good indicators of Liberal fiscal responsibility today. The '95 Liberals were NOTHING like the Liberals today, just like the Trudeau Liberals were NOTHING like the '95 Liberals. Blindly following a political label is a dangerous and stupid thing to do. All that matters is who's running the party and what they're saying they want to do. When I see people like Bob Rae (a big spender as Ontario Premier) and Dion promising giant spending increases, I'm going to assume that's what the LPC wants to increase spending. You, on the other hand, plug your ears, close your eyes and say they're going to do the opposite of their promises, deliberately blinding yourself to the reality of today and desperately trying to suck everyone in with you. The Liberals are not the government, you're right, but that doesn't mean we can't judge their policy and platforms of the recent past and the present. Those all indicated increased spending.

Whether or not the programs were Liberal or Conservative is irrelevant. Either way the money was spent or promised to be spent. To make the argument that the Liberals would have cut spending to finance their new spending programs you actually need something to base that on. THE ONLY actual facts we have to go on here is that the Liberals were promising spending increases. My claims are based on their party platform. Your speculation is based on whatever you think makes the LPC look better. I didn't. You are again ignoring what I said. I said the Liberals promised, campaigned on and demanded increased spending. You've decided that what they would have done was the opposite.... I'm not speculating. I'm basing my position on the LPC party's platform and what THEY THEMSELVES said. If they were serious about scaling back Harper's spending they would have indicated such during the 08 election. As it turns out the only thing that was mentioned was $85B in new spending increases and STILL you insisted that they're somehow going to cut spending. and the responsibility is duly Harper's. That STILL doesn't mean you have anything to back up your claim that the Liberals would have or even would now reduce spending. Even THEY are not saying that. They promised before and have been promising the whole time to do the opposite. It is a bogus argument. Other than the stimulus spending at least, which they did indeed demand and Harper did it to save his government. When the Liberals turn around and pretend they didn't want the spending and promise to reduce spending, I'll vote for them. I'll know them for the snakes they are but at least I'll have a reason to believe they'll reduce spending. They are the ones promising extra spending with no mention of cuts. Trivial examples with little bearing on the overall picture. The via rail cuts were politically motivated. The military college was a tiny overall spending boost to our military. You're grasping at anything you can hold on to now huh? My partisanship extends only so far as criticizing the bleating of blind sheep cheerleading the party of their choice. When you come up with made up balogna and start misrepresenting facts I'm going to criticize you for it. When Mr. Canada used to post his nonsense I'd similarly call him out on it.

Interestingly enough i agree with everything you're saying here.

It's not lashing out to mock your assertion that we have a separatist conspiracy within cabinet and that these same cabinet ministers apparently read separatist magazines. There's very little anyone can say when you start going down that road. It's far beyond the realm of intelligent argument or discussion. You bring the so-called 'personalization' on yourself.

Posts like these are why the forum community at large has trouble taking you seriously.

The Liberals DEMANDED stimulus spending and threatened to bring down the government over it. Forgot that didn't you? They would have started their own spending programs, as promised in their election platforms. Forgot that too didn't you? I'm getting so tired of this thread now. Every time I've responded to you I've said I'm NOT BLAMING THE LIBERALS, yet you continue to say it's wrong to blame the Liberals. You're not even reading what I'm saying. What I've been saying this WHOLE thread is that if it looks, acts and smells like a pig, it's a pig. The Liberals spent heavily in 2004-2006, they promised extravagant spending in 2006, campaigned on spending increases in 2008 and demanded spending increases in December 2008. I'm basing my criticism of them on THEIR OWN POLICY PLATFORMS. You're making it up for them all in hind-sight and claiming that none of their OFFICIAL positions matter because they weren't in government. Basically what you're saying is that what you've decided the Liberals WOULD have done is drastically different from what they themselves SAID they would have done. You claim they would not have increased spending drastically even though they promised they would. You claim that if they did increase spending, they would have cut spending elsewhere, even though there is ZERO indication from them that this would have happened. You're making up a lot of things on the Liberal's behalf. Like I said before, you're so desperate to preserve the image of the label you've been blindly following that you'll contradict their own party platform and make stuff up yourself to fill in the gaps. You really don't have anything to support any of your opinions. Where was there any indication the Liberals would have reduced spending if they were running things? You can say it doesn't matter, but for you to claim the Liberals want to reduce spending you need the party itself to step up and say so. It's hack partisanship and you know it.

Jdobbin you know how I was saying in the other thread how you'll dig hard and deep for anything, no matter how small you can find, to criticize the CPC? Remember how I said the effort you put into finding even trivial and meaningless articles, no matter how obscure, underlines a VERY emotional and fanatical support for the Liberal Party? Remember how I said you deliberately misrepresent and misinterpret information on a regular basis here? Well THIS is a perfect example. As was previously stated, it was a tiny fraction of the total amount of money doled out for magazine bailouts, although you tried to imply that the CPC was deliberately funding separatists and not normal Canadian media. Barf man. A WHOLE $27,000. It's almost a certainty that Harper was behind this as well. I'm sure high-level cabinet ministers read this magazine all the time and that's why they gave them that gargantuan amount. This is DEFINETLY newsworthy material to be posting here.

I just hope that when that crook Mulroney goes down, he takes his son down somehow with him. Every time I see Ben Mulroney on TV I want to punch my screen.