waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Hey, if the Red Rag says Kinsella was selected to head the Liberal war room, there must be something to it.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/564254
Confirmation is offered every time Kinsella appears as a pundit on media talk shows such as CTV's Power Play.
Seems to be just a January Canadian Press reference recycled... everywhere. Thanks for the update - I did not realize Tim Powers would be heading up the Conservative 'war room'.
Now... Kinsella's got the experience - had a couple of kicks at it in the past. My gawd, he's written a book titled "The War Room", but I've not read him personally acknowledge the assignment for the "next one".
-
It's telling that Ignatieff has appointed a man like this to run the Liberal war room. It shows that nothing is going to change under Ignatieff - except, of course, that the next election will be even dirtier than the last.
other than you reading this 'war room' appointment notice in Ezra Levant's blog... is there confirmation elsewhere?
thought Mr. Kinsella is an unpaid volunteer at the moment - no?
apparently Mr. Kinsella has touched a few nerves over there at Blogging Tories hq - I trust he will keep the 'heat on' and continue to profile the likes of that disgraceful racist Kathy Shaidle @ fivefeetofbowelmovement.com ..... why, oh why, would the Harper government actually associate itself with Shaidle? Really... why?
-
I know what he is saying. I am well versed in doublespeak as well as changing opinions.
In speaking to the adopted CUPE Ontario motion, Sid Ryan, President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario stated:
“The resolution does not call for a boycott of individual Israeli academics or all Israeli academic institutions.”Notwithstanding that Point #2 of the adopted CUPE Ontario motion reads:
2. Encourage its member locals to hold public forums to discuss an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutionsso, madmax… about that doublespeak you claim to be well versed in… what’s up with your brothers and sisters in CUPE Ontario – who, apparently, have gone rogue as CUPE national president Paul Moist issued a statement Monday saying the national union does not support the CUPE Ontario resolution:
“The resolution does not represent CUPE National policy,” the statement said. “As a national union, we are governed by policy resolutions adopted at our national conventions.”Solidarity forev… err…
-
-
Mr. Ignatieff is massaging his position in the 2009 article in Macleans.
If I were "rebuffed" you would know it. If I was "Soundly" Rebuffed, I would know it, because everyone would be giving you BORAT HIGH FIVES!!!
And you continue to ignore all evidence posted in response as well as evidence from 2009 demonstrating Mr. Ignatieff on both sides of the fence and neither at the same time. A perfect politician. A not so perfect defender of human rights or advocate against torture.
Mr. Ignatieff is snookered by the Macleans reporter, it is in those previous threads. He boxed himself into a corner and then separated Canadian "RIGOROUS INTEROGATION" from COERCIVE INTEROGATION.
I could give a rats patooey over your sensitivities to being rebuffed... but for completeness sake and to help stamp out overall MLW posting revisionism, the point in question was your blatant posturing/claim that sleep deprivation was now banned at Quantanamo and how dare he (Ignatieff) countenance sleep deprivation in the face of this so-called banning. I pointed you to the recent Obama executive order that calls for the handling of detainees in accordance with the U.S. Army field manual... I provided you a link to the manual and the relevant Appendix M titled, "Restricted Interrogation Technique - Separation"... which allows for the use of sleep and sensory deprivation and isolation - termed "separation". So, yes - sleep deprivation... not banned. So, yes - Ignatieff not out of step with Obama. So, yes, madmax rebuffed. Did I say soundly rebuffed? Oh my!
perhaps if you take a step back and separate your personal bias from the discussion you may recognize the Ignatieff consistency of statement and position... or at least possibly offer a cohesive argument that clearly and precisely shows Ignatieff's support/advocacy for torture. You know - the argument you've clearly failed at.
-
My agenda is to let people know that Mr. Ignatieffs views on torture are more in line with the United States, then they are CANADA or the UNITED NATIONS.
Michael Ignatieff:
So getting to the issue of interrogation, interrogation has to be consistent with Canadian law, consistent with international conventions—like the Convention on Torture—consistent with our international obligations. It has to be rigorous and thorough, because we’re up against some threats to our security, but it must be within the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws, and it must be subject to democratic scrutiny.you have been asked - several times - to advise where Ignatieff's position on interrogation is inconsistent and outside the traditions and scrutiny mentioned in the above quote. Crickets.
you attempted to cast Ignatieff as being out of step with Obama and recent changes (re: Quantanamo)... when you were soundly rebuffed on that matter (which you have yet to acknowledge and comment on), you now, in this your latest comment, suggest Ignatieff is more in line with the U.S. Which is it... make up your mind!
-
What you choose to ignore, I can do nothing about.
what you choose to skew, what you choose to falsify, I can... and will... do something about (it).
so - again - you offer more out of context incomplete quotations, this time from the recent Macleans article Q&A:
let's try a more complete accurate extract from that Macleans Q&A (bold highlighting included for my emphasis):
Q: On the use of torture, an issue you’ve written about, you said that to defeat evil sometimes we have to traffic in evil, and you did advocate indefinite detention of subjects and coercive interrogation. Do you still feel the same way about those matters?
A: I think if you read the entirety of The Lesser Evil—and I think I can ask that it be read and judged in its entirety—I have a very personal horror of torture.
Q: That’s clear in the piece.
A: I believe that we are faced with people who are a danger to Canadian national security and a danger to our way of life, and we’re part of a global effort, not a war on terror but a global effort, to defeat extremism, and the message in The Lesser Evil, the metaphor that was key to me in The Lesser Evil, was democratic states have to fight this battle with one hand tied behind their back, and it’s because they tie one hand behind their back that they win. So getting to the issue of interrogation, interrogation has to be consistent with Canadian law, consistent with international conventions—like the Convention on Torture—consistent with our international obligations. It has to be rigorous and thorough, because we’re up against some threats to our security, but it must be within the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws, and it must be subject to democratic scrutiny.
Q: Does Canadian law allow for coercive interrogation?
A: I don’t believe we should engage in those forms of coercive interrogations. Rigorous interrogation can take place without actions that would disgrace us morally or legally.
Q: What’s the difference between coercive and rigorous interrogation?
A: Rigorous interrogation is consistent with Canadian law and international standards.
Q: So it’s not coercive.
A: Not coercive.
Q: So you no longer believe that coercive interrogation is advisable.
A: When I talked about coercive interrogation, people then made the allusion right away to torture. That was never, ever, ever intended/desired/stated. There is a clear line between tough interrogations that stay on the right side of the law and stuff that gets into the area of moral disgrace, and I’ve always been clear what that line is.
-
and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has. If you boldly state otherwise you should be prepared to offer qualification... waiting.
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."
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.
and you do… what has already been done… many times over. That is to perpetuate a fallacy with an out of context quotation:
the complete Ignatieff quote:
"An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies. For that is what the rule of law commits us to: to show respect even to those who show no respect for us."To keep faith with this commitment, 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."Fine idea, you say, but who is to enforce these safeguards?"with context and in it’s entirety, there is no qualification offered… there is no qualification needed. Ignatieff clearly does not support torture… as stated here and as he consistently states elsewhere… Ignatieff does not support/advocate torture.
and yet, you weakly latch on to the same tired old hack-job in an attempt to falsely label Ignatieff. Your motivation/agenda is clear.
-
You are going down the wrong path again.
we have done this dance - I believe several times now. You have not been able to make your case - yet... your position, your "light" characterization, is your personal assessment that hasn't been and can't be substantiated in light of Ignatieff's past statements... no matter how much you'd like to "nuance" them.
-
The 24/7 I love Iggy coming from Progressive Tory is almost as annoying as...
interesting - my take on PT is one of a passionate opinionated individual who typically provides linked references to substantiate the annoyance she brings to some who, frankly, don't take to having Harper or the Conservatives challenged... on anything. It would appear she has struck up a following from those who have difficulty with her message... a following from those who would rather (attempt) to deflect by trying to concentrate on (she) the messenger rather than the inadequacies/failings of other leaders/parties.
-
I can't help but comment.
and so you should - but accurately. Many quotes have been tabled here unequivocally demonstrating Ignatieff's position on torture - that he does not support it and never has. If you boldly state otherwise you should be prepared to offer qualification... waiting.
msj has rightly cast this thread with the gossipy attachment it deserves. Your posturing around a "family values" theme - presuming to denigrate a politician... any politician... for failed marriage/relationships, will leave us a significantly reduced candidate pool. Apparently, admitted and accepted failure/mistakes has been known to actually build character - go figure!
-
I believe this guy is doing it right now.....
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/25/look-wh...k-in-the-party/
Beryl Wajsman is many things to many people: well-connected gadfly,
Banned for life.... I like that. At least Ignatieff has laid out how he is going swoon quebec.
the "banning" simply reflected 2 at odds factions, one of which... it is said... used the events to push out persons aligned - elsewhere. Since neither of the described faction "leaders" remain in the game and since Mr. Wajsman remains adamant he did nothing wrong and was never charged with any wrongdoing/crime.....
-
The issue isn't gay marriage it's the Liberals stacking the courts with their cronies. That is why when you go to family court or divorce court you get your ass handed to you. Thank the Liberals if this happens to you.
By putting in activists it shows that the courts are less concerned with justice and more concerned with liberal doctrine.
I am somewhat confused - I trust you can add greater clarity.
is it cronies... or homosexual perverted cronies... or activists? As before, your assistance would be most appreciated in identifying those you describe as cronies/homosexual perverted cronies/activists - the ones you state the Liberals are stacking the courts with. Thanks in advance.
-
They put people in court positions in order to pass gay marriage.
who they?
which people?
what court positions?
thank you for your assistance in this regard.
-
Also, we Canadians should remember that it was the Liberals who stacked the courts with homosexuals in order to advance their gay agenda. So they are not only corrupt but perverted as well.You agree that the courts have been stacked with homosexuals then?
your assistance in outlining the Liberal homosexual court stacking efforts, perverted or otherwise, is requested. Please advise - thanks.
-
not a problem - Relevant & Truthful will be the guiding influence.
and really... c'mon, who can have a problem when it's packaged with such a benign label as "research".
-
You're dodging my point!
When we no longer have the resources to participate in such missions all the points you've made become moot.
We had nothing of substance to send to Iraq. Period. End of story.
you’re dodging my point!
discussions on the preparedness and capability levels for Canada participating in rogue nation preemptive warfare… is moot. Period. End of story.
-
The "...logical, rationale(sic!)and correct Chretien act..." was to stay out of Iraq because after sending both our guys and our plane to Afghanistan it would have been ferociously embarrassing to Chretien to have the entire world see how poor and limited our resources had become!
It had nothing to do with some higher morality on Chretien's part and everything to do with the Liberals having turned Canada into a toothless tiger on the world "peacekeeping" stage, no matter how many different ways you'd like to spin it!
you appear to take exception with both the rational Chretien act and the Chretien rationale for the act…
oh snap! How could I have missed the part about Iraq being simply a peacekeeping initiative - notwithstanding your apparent zeal for preemptive warfare, which - of course - has no bearing on or relation with Canada’s traditional peacekeeping role.
-
good on ya for finding your kindred spirit - Jamie Glazov, who makes a case for the Canadian psyche needing "anti-Americanism" to identify itself.Nobody should need Glazov to make such an obvious case. Mexicans don't have this problem.
in your skewed view of Canadians do you offer any distinctions for degrees of your perceived anti-Americanism? Is any Canadian who dares question, oh, say… a segment of American foreign policy, for example… is that questioning Canadian given your anti-American basher labelling? It would seem overt – even subtle - displays of Canadian nationalism give you pause.
Jamie Glazov who attributed Trudeau's foreign relationships to Trudeau's purposeful attempt/need to "stand-up" to Americans...Right again...how else was he gonna sell the "uniqueness" Quebec?huh? Selling Quebec to who? To “English Canada”… based on (Glazov’s) stated purposeful attempt/need to “stand-up” to Americans??? Sorry, my crack research staff appears to be having difficulty deciphering this – could you please elaborate – thanks.
Jamie Glazov, who severely criticized Chretien for his decision to keep Canada out of Iraq..... and ultimately attributed Chretien's "anti-American" position to being a protege of Trudeau. This Jamie Glazov quote is particularly of note:But Chrétien’s obsession with “standing up” to the Americans has led him, like many of his predecessors, to place Canada on the side of evil.It’s disgusting and absolutely pathetic.oh my! Glazov would equate anti-Americanism to being on the side of evil
yes, good on ya for finding your kindred spirit
This one doesn't matter in practical terms...Canada couldn't have done boo in Iraq.practical terms? You still cling to some detached reality that your described Iraqi regime change has actually resulted in a safer America – a safer world; that your practical extensions, your bazillion dollar expenditures, the lost lives, the middle-east instability, the divided America - the tarnished America… that all your “practical terms” were worthwhile. In the face of your country’s shameful Iraq war, most Canadians have gladly accepted and embraced the symbolic Chretien act that kept Canada out of your Coalition of the Willing – the logical , rationale and correct Chretien act that had nothing to do with anti-Americanism, no matter how many different ways you’d like to spin it.
-
I'm talking about this kind of Trudeaumania sentiment, .....
good on ya for finding your kindred spirit - Jamie Glazov, who makes a case for the Canadian psyche needing "anti-Americanism" to identify itself. Jamie Glazov who attributed Trudeau's foreign relationships to Trudeau's purposeful attempt/need to "stand-up" to Americans... Jamie Glazov, who severely criticized Chretien for his decision to keep Canada out of Iraq..... and ultimately attributed Chretien's "anti-American" position to being a protege of Trudeau. This Jamie Glazov quote is particularly of note:
But Chrétien’s obsession with “standing up” to the Americans has led him, like many of his predecessors, to place Canada on the side of evil.It’s disgusting and absolutely pathetic.oh my! Glazov would equate anti-Americanism to being on the side of evil
yes, good on ya for finding your kindred spirit
-
Hopefully, there is no catastrophic decision making done this year.
hope springs eternal... but as a disproportionate amount of the stimulus monies have been/will be tagged to CPC ridings, disaster recovery planning can be so concentrated for best results. See - always a silver lining.
-
This could have used its own thread. I cannot understand how someone "Banned for Life" from the Liberal Party becomes the backroom boy for the leader of the Liberal Party?
It reminds me of Karl Schrieber lurking around......
Wajsman vigorously denied any involvement, and was never charged with wrongdoing. -
LOL
Little hot under the collar today? I would have commented on this, but, Moonbox outdid anything I could have written in reply.
nope - call it mildly miffed at your apologist labeling... particularly when you can't be bothered to accept - to acknowledge - when your recycling attempts have already been trumped.
-
But one thing is certain, Ignatieff isn't viewed in the same light, around the globe, and in human rights circles as Liberals view him today.
and from this thread, says a 2-bit blogger - with an apparent McGuinty agenda... and an anonymous poster.
Much of Ignatieffs criticisms were written against him 5 years ago. It was important to many people to find someone with the courage to stand up to Bush and not be an apologist for him.dipped into a little hindsight there, hey dipper? Is there really any more mileage you can squeak out of the Ignatieff Iraq position? What part of his accepting his own failed judgment aren't you quite accepting to, yourself?
Conservatives Mislead on in budget
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
and Don Newman eviscerated the Ted Menzies claim that he'd been absolutely forthright in earlier describing the 'hidden' Conservative fine print..... fine print that, apparently no one else recognized... not the Liberals, not the NDP, not the BQ, not the Press Gallery, not the mainstream media, not blogworld, not even the Conservative Senators who agreed to the Senate schedule. As already stated, Flaherty couldn't even describe the particulars and needed to go to a gopher for assistance.
ya ya, let's deflect and make this an issue all about those aforementioned incompetents who didn't manage to root out the Harper Conservative dirty trick earlier. Far be it from any partisan hack to actually acknowledge the real salient point => exactly why did/would the Harper Conservatives construct such an odd formulation for the start date of extended EI premiums... then, effectively, bury the date and avoid reinforcing its significance.
Exactly - why? Certainly not an answer I would want widely distributed if I was a Conservative strategist...