Moonbox

No, that's why Liberal staffers were looking up the speech. Harper wanting to send troops to Iraq is something everyone already knew in 2006 and he was elected PM regardless. The issue Bob Rae is making NOW is that Harper plagiarized a speech which is funny considering his party leader did just as bad or worse and so did numerous high ranking officials within his party (Iggy also).

Wait...are you denying that it happened?????? I already provided links to newspapers confirming it. Harper and his 'minions' did provide an answer too. The writer of the speech resigned and the PM's office said they had no knowledge of the speech being plagiarized. What else do you want? As far as I know with Dion he never apologized or admitted it. He tried to hide it.

When I provided a word for word comparison of both articles it became rather unlikely that I made that up and just as unlikely that whoever I referred to for my search had made it up either. It's simple copy and pasting and a 5 second search would have yielded you the same results. Yes, I understand it's important to reference your opinions and claims but sometimes even I give people the benefit of the doubt. How is it corrected? The speech writer in Harper's case resigned. It's a gigantic stretch to assume Harper would be dumb enough to know he was speaking a plagiarized speech. Where was the correction from Dion, other than yanking the information off his 'official website' and trying to hide his tracks? How is that different? Other than that it was easier for Dion to hide his tracks? It was a blatent rip-off on both sides. At least in Parliament the issue can be easily critiqued. That's a bit of a jump in logic. You're assuming that the position of the official opposition was not already that it was dangerous to leave Saddam Hussein in power. Words being copied by a speech writer does not mean that Harper did not come to this conclusion on his own. The question of whether Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power is something altogether different. He was a proven mass-murderer and genocidal maniac who used WMD's on his own citizens in an area of the world which the west depends on for fuel. The Bush administration led everyone to believe they had conclusive evidence he had another WMD program in development, and the world (ie Howard, Harper, Blair etc) all acted on this supposed 'evidence'. It turns out we were all fooled, but blame Bush for this.

Myata please note in my opening post that I can't reference Dion's website anymore because it was hastily re-written after he started receiving criticism for it, but here are the sources I used without looking very far into it: Dion and Suzuki Foundation Report comparison Yes, that's a blog. I know it's not a super source, but here's confirmation of it from the Globe and Mail: Globe and Mail on Dion's plagiarism Now that I wasted my time proving it to you, I'm dying for a response. I'm waiting patiently but I'm highly doubting many Liberal supporters are going to venture into this thread. If you close your eyes, plug your ears and hum loudly you can pretend it didn't happen.

Harper's aide plagiarized a speech fairly heavily. Fair enough. Nobody's disputing this. Now, my question would be how does this compare to how Dion plagiarized entire sections WORD FOR WORD in his campaign platform from the Suzuki Foundation? Or his copyright infringement with the Green Shift? Bob Rae is an ass. He's the biggest schmoozer in Ontario political history and I'd LOVE to hear what he has to say about the ACADEMIC PROFESSOR leading his party who plagiarized entire paragraphs word for word from the Suzuki Foundation. Seriously. Nothing is held as despicable in the academic community than plagiarism, but apparently Dion has no qualms with that. Here are some passages by the way: Dion: "In Canada, air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and hundreds of thousands of days absent from work and school annually. The Ontario Medical Association issued a report in 2005 saying that every year 5,800 Ontarians will die prematurely because of smog related illness..." Suzuki Report: "Across Canada, air pollution causes thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and hundreds of thousands of days absent from work and school annually....The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) estimated that there were 5,800 premature deaths due to air pollution in Ontario alone in 2005." Dion has since pulled all of these off his websites (for obvious reasons) but no citations were ever mentioned crediting the Suzuki foundation. You decide if that's plagiarism and if Bob Rae is not completely and totally full of diarhea.

again, independant, I have to wonder if you have an even basic understanding of politics to have posted this. I mean...what are you trying to get at? Harper really has nothing to gain here and he's already widely seen as the candidate who'll put the smallest priority on fighting poverty. He's getting virtually no votes from the left so why on earth would he waste his time in that area?

I was about ready to repost pretty much all the same things. Thanks for saving me the time. A response maybe Keng?

Greenthumb you spent probably 45 minutes typing up a childish parable every poster on this board bar none is laughing at you for. You can go ahead and make stupid claims about who you think holds the intellectual high ground but your posts almost without exception have been completely devoid of anything even RESEMBLING critical thought. We'll let the rest of the forum decide who needs things 'dumbed down' for him to understand.

The NDP is and always will be irrelevant given how air-headed their leaders and their policies normally are. The VAST majority of Canadians are more scared of what Layton would do with a majority than Harper would.

Ontario's tax system discourages new investment that would create and sustain new jobs to replace the ones being lost. What's your explanation for that?

Not that I'm really arguing with you, but Ontario only has high corporate INVESTMENT taxes. What Flaherty has been questioning Ontario on is their strategy to have the 4th highest capital investment tax rate of any state/province/country in the WORLD. That means that Ontario HEAVILY taxes new investment in the economy. It's sickening how stupid it is. "Well the economy is going down the crapper. What now?" McGuinty: "Well for starters we can heavily tax the companies that want to EXPAND business in Ontario and replace jobs being lost and then give tax cuts and hand outs to companies that are cutting jobs by the thousands." Right....

This really is the weakest attempt at parable ever. Greenthumb you continue to amaze me by how empty-headed some of your posts really are. Analogy and parable are by far and away the weakest form of argument there is. The argument is made on the most simplistic of terms. Logical methodology is completely thrown out the door and the 'cause and effect' part of the argument is completely abandoned. Parable and analogy is nothing more than saying, "This is exactly like ____!!" It ignores the glaring inconsistancies and flaws in the comparison being made and concludes that because the two things being compared were demonstrated to somehow be somewhat similar in ONE WAY, they should be considered exactly the same. When parable is successful, it touches people on a personal or moral level in some sort of relevant way and may help people look at something in a different view. When held up to scrutiny, however, the parable usually starts looking pretty leaky and at best will only serve to provoke some brief thought. Greenthumb, it may be that kindergarten parable/analogies are YOUR best best attempt at rational thought, but the rest of the community is either laughing at you right now or preparing new "don't do drugs" speeches for their kids, because you've just given them a new reason to worry.

I think the VP debate will be like watching monkeys throw poo at each other. I'm really not interested in the least in seeing a loud mouth wing nut argue with an empty-headed twit. Which one is which? I'll let you decide.

Well then, if you've got testimony from yourself backing up your own opinion then you must be right.... Liberal support is strongest (and almost exclusive) to large urban communities with large ethnic populations. It's very much a fact that the Liberals pandered to the immigrant population and that it WAS just politics on their part. Their whole 'family reunification' program was one giant pander to this very specific crowd. It did not matter that better qualified and more skilled english-speaking immigrants were waiting in several year long back-logs at Canada Immigration, all that mattered was that immigrant families were allowed to bring thousands and thousands of unskilled, unqualified and often social assistance leeching family members from their home countries. Why? Not because it was good for Canada and not because there was any moral obligation on our part to do so. It was because this is what solidified the ethnic vote for the Liberals.

This is by far and away the dumbest post I've ever read on these forums. The previous champion (he knows who he is) has a new level to aspire to. If a reporter came up to me and asked me what kind of vegetable I'd be I'd tell him I don't have time to answer stupid questions from drooling retards.

Independent Alberta is doing terrificly well right now. I agree oil royalties should be increased and that's where it looks like it's going under the new premier, but saying Alberta has been run badly is a little silly given how well the province has actually done over the last 15 years. A conservative premier is going to raise oil royalties after a conservative premier oversaw the biggest economic boom anywhere in the country has EVER seen. What are you getting at, especially when you're citing the Toronto Star which is the most pro-Liberal newspaper in existence?

We're not ignoring anything. Dion has been saying his carbon tax will be revenue neutral. First, if you look at the "Green Shift" calculator on the Liberal's OWN website, the Green Shift is ONLY going to help the very poorest of Canadians and EVERYONE else will end up worse off. Try it out. Seriously. You have to make a COMBINED family income of like 20,000 and have several kids for this to really do you any good. The Green Shift is an abomination for me and anyone but full time Wal-Mart and McDonald's employees. Second, if Dion's "Green Shift" is to be 'revenue neutral'. If that's the case, and he's promised 80 Billion in extra spending, where in god's name is he getting this money if not from higher taxes? Dion has been saying a lot of things. I have been listening. I've gone to the LIBERAL WEBSITE and read everything they said there too. None of what they say there will do me ANY good at all, and I'm a young Canadian and my income is average at best! I don't believe any of the attack ads I see. I don't even believe of what Harper says. What I do know, however, is that of all the candidates he's the only one running that's not looking to attack industry and business in Canada and throw money at dubious social programs and equalization payments to the poor. No thank you. Everything Dion has said has me worried he'd herald the return of Trudeau era idiotic Liberal spending. Chretien/Martin I could stomach. Dion has me absolutely retching.

Yes, he's autocratic. You've made more topics over the last few days on this or almost identical issues than I have in my entire history on this website. Tell us something new. Make a relevant point. I beg of you. I really don't want to have to keep scrolling down through the list of threads just because you posting a new "I hate Harper" thread every time I log back in. For the record, North American leadership is typically very autocratic as a whole and it's the Europeans who have the bigger distaste for it.

I didn't try and justify anything. I said it was an intelligent move that only an idiot wouldn't make. You're the one who just keeps repeating, "But he said!!!!" Something he will quite likely make amends for this time around. Oh wow! Then what are you posting for other than just trolling? What's the thread titled? Why are you arguing with my assessment of why Harper called the election and why only a fool would have done otherwise? Really...why ARE you arguing with me at all when I haven't said anything even close to the effect that he didn't flip flop (GASP OMG a politican changed his stance!)? Go away troll, you're not worth the words anymore.

Methinks you are just trying to troll my posts now. In Canada. Maybe there's a difference. Also, considering you deal in media liability, maybe I'm having a worthless argument with someone who has a vested interest in this sort of thing? Right...be successful and you deserve having the bottom of the media scum bucket make your life a living hell. Bravo Guyser.

The media isn't interested in anyone's message. Certain newspapers and television stations have very obvious political biases. They're also run by corporations looking for 'profit' and they've decided that the most profitable type of media is negative. Screaming mobs of journalists and reporters deserve to be mocked. Saying that journalists asking loaded questions should be at all times answered candidly is stupid not only because there are too many of these rabid dogs to possibly satisfy but also because as often as not they're going to twist whatever you say and turn it against you depending on their own party biases. I didn't say she was qualified nor do I think McCain is either. I will wince for 3 months straight if the US re-elects the republicans. That doesn't mean that I don't think the media frenzy surrounding Palin is fair or reasonable. If you think the media has to answer to charges of harrassment then you clearly don't have a freaking clue what goes on there. To qualify for harrassment a media person has to pretty much threaten or physically assault someone. If you think the media frenzy surrounding Britany Spears was fair then you're either blind or just a cold cold person.

If you're going to argue that the media is fair and reasonable and that they're NOT just looking to make people look bad then you're completely out to lunch. By the way, your "but the Liberals" thing is getting kind of old. This is an election. We're doing comparisons here. It's ridiculous to imply that making these comparisons somehow weakens an argument. Palinized...haha. I seriously like that. Personally, I think Palin was a joke of a VP candidate and it's good that the Americans can see it, but you have to admit that the media has harrassed her. American 'freedoms' go a little too far sometimes and I think the media there has far too much freedom to destroy people's lives with harrasment, rumours, rhetoric and exaggerations than it really should have.

I think that's a better way of expressing what I said. Very insightful. No matter what we think, our feelings, morals and perceptions completely alter what we think is best of Canada and we're never all going to agree.

If he had a majority government I would agree with you and I'd not be able to defend anything he said. In a minority government where the opposition has announced its intention publicly to bring down your government (when it's advantageous to them) only an idiot would cripple himself and hand over every advantage to his opponents. Non-confidence was informally declared by the opposition and they avoided it to play the 'poll and wait' game by the silly technicality of abstaining from every vote. You can complain all you want going, "But! But! He said...!" but if you think that it would have been intelligent and reasonable for Harper to make absolutely certain the Liberals had every advantage and should have been allowed to poll until they knew they could win before they finally voted non-confidence then you're clearly incapable of having a 'reasoned' and worthwhile discussion. Again, I don't think Harper holds the high ground here and I don't think anyone is claiming he does. This, however, does not change the fact that only an idiot would have allowed the liberals to scheme against a weak minority government until a Liberal victory was assured. The liberals were not doing their job. They were abstaining from voting on legislation they felt was completely wrong for Canada. They were ONLY looking to keep their jobs safe and they were more concerned with getting back into power than they were with looking out for Canada. Don't throw the balogna around about who should be or shouldn't be trusted. We all know every politician out there is more slippery than a snake bathed in KY. I vote in my best interests and so do you and we make our own decisions but acting like Harper is somehow less trustworthy than anyone else out there is stupid. You've seen Layton's and Dion's spending promises. They're criticizing Harper for SPENDING while their spending promises DWARF Harper's. It takes no genius to understand that they're both making things up as they go along. I won't even comment on May because I think she's an even bigger joke than Layton.

and you make the blind and foolish assumption that the media is not biased and fairly reports only the facts. Like I said, the media wants to report glaring catastrophes and political bungles. Again, why give them the opportunity to twist and exaggerate your words when they're going to completely ignore everything intelligent and good you say? Wait...yes...I forgot. In Dr. Greenthumb's opinion it's a travesty for someone he doesn't like to think and act intelligently.