Moonbox

It doesn't matter where Chrysler goes. The corporation itself is going bankrupt as a whole. It doesn't matter if the Canadian subsidiary goes down first because Chrysler as a brand has a 1/100 chance of surviving. Protected bankruptcy is the best they can hope for and I think that's overly optimistic. We'll see some popular brands sold off and the rest of the company is probably just going to fold.

If taken on its own merits, the post is not worth much comment. Polls mean practically nothing unless you're approaching an election. Ask Joe Clark. Because we have a new "Ignatieff is the messiah" post coming from you almost hourly and because of how blind and CONSTANT/ENDLESS your nattering about him is, I feel compelled to match that with a heavy dose of sarcasm/derision. Regardless of your lifestyle, which I'll agree is none of my business, I'm still amazed by your endurance. You're every bit the match of Mr. Canada disregarding his completely opposite (but similarly silly/biased) positions on virtually everthing political.

so do other provinces

Jdobbin you don't have the slightest clue. I'll grant you that Harper had a lot of stupid spending increases, particularly in the 2008 election budget, but it's 100% retarded to say that these were the 'cause' of the current deficit. One detail that you've always avoided to acknowledge Jdobbin was that Paul Martin's spending increases as PM more or less matched Harper's. Whether it was a Liberal or Conservative government, we would have had those increases. When you're in danger of losing confidence in minority government it's almost impossible to keep a tight wallet. The fact that none of them ran a deficit during this period is at least worthy of credit. The reason we're running a deficit now is that revenue fell through the floor. The Liberals ABSOLUTELY insisted on a deficit. It's easy for a snivelling opposition (and their hack supporters) to claim hindshight today but we could have used this information a few years ago. Let's look a few simple facts: 1. Paul Martin's Liberals increased spending at pretty much the exact same pace that Harper's Tories did while they were in charge. It's all about public opinion in a shakey minority. 2. Despite a CPC minority and innumerable chances the Liberals had to bring down the current government in the last several years, they did nothing. If they were serious about creating 'reserves' and curbing spending, they would have made an issue about it. They didn't. I wonder what Canadians would have been more receptive to. Tax decreases and increased spending OR no tax decreases and no spending increases? 3. Months ago I provided links where Liberals were clamoring for $30B in direct stimulus spending and accusing Harper of not doing enough for the economy. Given that the only way to pay for $30B in stimlus was to run a deficit, your claim that the Liberals weren't insisting on a deficit is not only wrong but also flat out retarded. I eagerly await to see how you'll squirm your way around these arguments. Are you going to take the 'Don't personalize' approach or the 'let's get anal and semantic' approach? Either way I'm excited to see how you're going to convince us all that the Liberals would have spent $15B per year extra paying back debt or saving money in 2006-2007 given that every indication from back then was pretty much pointing to the opposite. Hindsight is precious isn't it?

God will cure AIDS when people stop having sex outside of marriage. I mean, it's not like there's anything totally natural about having sex. It's not like our bodies are engineered to want to do the dirty. It's an evil and dirty thing.... :angry:

I really thought this was funny. It reminds me of Pope John Paul saying politicians who advocate gay rights will have a place in hell reserved for them. Pope says condoms increase the risk of AIDS The Vatican has its head so far up its own ass that it's no wonder the flocks are flocking away from the Catholic Church.

I'm completely in awe of your stamina on these forums. Disregard the fact that 90% of what you write about is Ignatieff cheerleading and not even worth responding to anymore, I still have to give you credit for single-handedly keeping half the threads here alive all by yourself. Quantity over quality I guess eh? If you natter enough and completely drown out the opposition with the sheer volume of text and the number of posts your lifestyle somehow allows, eventually you have to be right? Right????

Okay. What are you getting at? That's what we said. He was out of touch and not very smart.

Get off that sinking ship while you can. It doesn't matter who's in charge right now. After the recession they're going down.

My feelings exactly. He was a political bonehead. He lost the election 100% himself. Mcguinty is highly unpopular already and Tory had a PC return in hand. His SPECTACULAR self destruction in the election following his intention to start faith-based schools turned a lot of us away. Even I couldn't vote for him.

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.