waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Thank you moonbox. Anyone who has read my previous posts on Ignatieff will find I raised some of the very criticisms Stickings discusses. Stickings uses a better writing style which is not surprising since English is my second language.
Exactly. The "blogger", as waldo likes to describe him, is a regular contributor to the UK Guardian which is perceived to be left wing. Stickings is a columnist who also authors a blog. Waldo can't seem to grasp that.
apparently, your English as a second language, continues to prevent you from actually bringing forward any actual criticisms, uniquely yours or one's you're in agreement with. As I said, other than the budget, Iraq and a hodge-podge of personalized assessment, lacking a supporting foundation, related to entitlement, ego, personality, etc., where's the criticism? Nothing new here... time to move along... nothing to see here.
the point you keep missing (intentionally ignoring) is that the same article appears on the bloggers site - with the most revealing and salient point of all, the point not included in the Guardian article and the point you have yet to acknowledge... again, the inconsequential blogger... the one you want to push forward as your model offering in Ignatieff criticism, still offers up that he feels Ignatieff is a better alternative than Harper. In spite of all the so-called criticism... that you won't actually mention or elaborate on yourself... the inconsequential blogger still offers up that he feels Ignatieff is a better alternative than Harper!. You can't seem to grasp that.
-
...or at least an "international court" (that some people are so fond of)....Canada has no jurisdiction in this case.
uhhh... what was his crime? Thought war was hell - and all that?
by not classifying detainees as POWs, apparently, the U.S. believes it has (or had) the right to try the detainees in military (or civilian?) courts... or just leave them languishing behind bars indefinitely, without charge/representation/trial.
-
So? Stickings seems to be a NDP supporter. I do like his take on Ignatieff that he calls an "opportunist" and a "charlatan".
So? I do like his take on Harper and his vicious band that he calls "Bush-lite Conservatives".
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.
c'mon, really - it's a package deal. One can hardly cherry pick the opinion of one lone inconsequential blogger while negating the most salient point he offers... that the guy still feels Ignatieff is a better alternative than Harper.
as for the so-called criticism, the lone inconsequential blogger says he doesn't agree with Ignatieff supporting the budget... although he likes the report card accountability Harper is being held to. The blogger feels a need to resurrect the much discussed Ignatieff position on Iraq. The blogger then offers a personal assessment on Ignatieff without any supporting foundation... just a personal assessment. Have I missed anything?
so far both you guys have broadly referenced to a lone inconsequential bloggers criticism... without actually picking up on any of the bloggers particular points. Is there really anything new presented here? Budget support... Iraq position... and a most personalized bloggers assessment on things like entitlement, ego, personality, etc.
so again, have I missed anything here... waiting, waiting
-
not a problem - some inconsequential blogger who states a preference for Bob Rae over Ignatieff... for full disclosure we should really link to his actual blog and quote his summary statement, as below:
you're welcome... carry on
So? Stickings seems to be a NDP supporter. I do like his take on Ignatieff that he calls an "opportunist" and a "charlatan".
So? I do like his take on Harper and his vicious band that he calls "Bush-lite Conservatives".
-
I believe the following may have been written just for you PT. It encapsulates everything I think and feel about Ignatieff.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...-canada-economy
not a problem - some inconsequential blogger who states a preference for Bob Rae over Ignatieff... for full disclosure we should really link to his actual blog and quote his summary statement, as below:
you're welcome... carry on
-
Really though I posted a link to that, but I guess unless it comes from the CBC you aren't apt to recognize it are you? If it doesn't fit your hero worship and left leanings it is something to be ignored or dismissed because it doesn't fit with your worship at the alter of socialism. Carry on with your misguided and false images, if you would read your own posts you would relise that the leftist crap you spew is nothing more then partisan dialogue that you mistake as non partisan as it come from your camp. I am not non partisan and never have claimed to be I am a small c conservative, I beleive in the values of true conservatism and have no place in mind for the endless void of principle that the left has. You people are mear sheep looking to worship at the alter of personality, and attack anything that challenges that belief you are as bad as religious extremists in a new found cult, the cult of personality.
the link you posted is a sham – your world renowned expert’s education is an unaccredited non-related PhD from a now closed disreputable diploma mill.
you will gain respect and credibility if you pull back your blinders and recognize that not everything fits your narrow-minded left versus right channeling. It is prudent upon you to point out the inadequacies of comment counter to your observations, to your perceived political ideology… equally, the onus is on you to highlight lacking principles from what you describe as the “leftist camp”. But you do neither, as it appears far easier for you to pull out the talking points rather than put an actual effort into bringing forward substantiated critique.
I recognize it is quite frustrating for self-described small-c conservatives (as yourself), given the state of Harper’s CPC and it’s lack of real fiscal conservatism. Accordingly, I’ll cut you some slack for your last comments about the alter/cult of personality… perhaps Harper’s missing personality has also unduly influenced you in this regard.
-
more enlightened then you, and the crap you spew around here.
not a problem Alta4ever... perhaps you may yet come forward with something that actually has a truthful substantive foundation. As it stands, you've shown no propensity for nonpartisan dialogue as you continue to beak off like a crazed redneck right-winger. It's easy to dismiss your hyperbole, your skewed references and your outright falsifications.
carry on
-
If you don't like my take on it how about from some one who is world renowned and considered to be n expert in their feild.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections
oh please - do you not think anyone will call you on your shyte?
your world renowned expert openly states he's not a mental health professional, notwithstanding he holds a Philosophy PhD from the highly disreputable Pacific Western University... an "institution" that when it was open, was completely unaccredited - a most notorious diploma mill. That's your world renowned expert!
-
hard not to notice your continued use of the poodle reference, occasionally personalized with your association to a Canadian politician, although more typically generalized with your assignment of the term to Canada proper . It would be helpful to shape a bit of timely (not dated) context around your usage - perhaps some practical examples - to really appreciate your meaning/intent. It's also not entirely clear if you're using the poodle reference pejoratively or as a term of endearment... please advise - thanks.
It's not that complicated, as I am gleefully embracing the term "poodle" in the indentical and often used context of the American Bush Administration (e.g. PM Harper or PM Blair) . As they say, turnabout is fair play, so I will have doggy treats at the ready for when Obama is pleased by Ignatieff's on-cue tricks.
.
.
Actually, it is both kinds of references. Mr. Ignatieff is very intelligent no doubt, and will make a fine poodle. In the larger context, I fail to see why it would be acceptable for a Bush/Harper but not Obama/Ignatieff dog show. As for timeliness...just stay tuned.
fine then – yours is a futures gleeful embrace of the poodle term for poodle actions not yet realized… coupled with past situations where you have reservations about disclosing examples that would warrant your continued use of a poodle term you can’t – or won’t – substantiate. Clearly, your repeated use of the poodle term provides you a relief outlet to counter some degree of diminished superiority – whether personal or related to the loss of standing of your country given the Bush debacle.
-
sssshhhhh - don't let it out... apparently, that Obama Harvard education helps one attain the highest political office in the land... hey now! Doesn't that Ignatieff fellow also have a Harvard education? Stay tuned.
as for your continued rehashing of the recent U.S. presidential campaign, that Obama voting record has been so thoroughly scrutinized, it’s a shame you can’t move yourself off the Palin points and actually latch onto some of that free-thinking scrutiny.
- yes, Obama voted ‘Present’ as an Illinois state senator… 129 times out of approximately 4000 votes cast – 3% of his votes. 3%. Of those 129 Present votes, about half are attributed to votes cast with other Democratic senators following Democratic party tactical strategies… along with another grouping of his Present votes that were part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. Each and every one of those 129 Present votes, the 3% of his total voting history, endured the heavy scrutiny of the Republicans during the U.S. Presidential campaign. And yet… you have the audacity to bring it up again.
- as for a rigorous accounting of Obama’s U.S. Congressional Senate voting record, positions, quotes… read Obama's record and gain some respect.
Yippy skippy a peice of paper from a bunch of stuff shirts that makes him so great and wise, or is it that knows how to tell professors what they want to hear?
I have no respect for him, he is the biggest blow hard to grace the whitehouse since Jimmy Carter.
quite the lame comeback on your part Skippy... but at least we've dispensed with your nonsense about Obama's Illinois state senator "Present" voting record and your parroting of the Palin point that he had no substantial political record leading up to the presidential campaign.
Your personal views on Obama seem at odds with the minimal time he's actually been in office, notwithstanding his significant initiatives already taken/underway... you really need a foundation to work from - at this early point in Obama's presidency, it's unclear how you could draw out such a clear assessment - perhaps you could elaborate on the "blow hard" attachment - uhhh, for Obama, not yourself.
-
Could be that is reflects poorly on Ignatieff, who unlike PM Harper, has no idea what the pressures of such an office might be.
"No drama" Obama won't have any need for this kind of poodle.
hard not to notice your continued use of the poodle reference, occasionally personalized with your association to a Canadian politician, although more typically generalized with your assignment of the term to Canada proper . It would be helpful to shape a bit of timely (not dated) context around your usage - perhaps some practical examples - to really appreciate your meaning/intent. It's also not entirely clear if you're using the poodle reference as pejoratively or as a term of endearment... please advise - thanks.
-
interesting take on Obama's visit from the UK Independent's foreign editor... Ignatieff turns on the charm
speaking of the "tired" reference:
Mr Obama and Mr Ignatieff have a lot in common besides their worldview, and mutual attraction. The Canadian opposition leader described President Obama as “an inspiration, because earlier than any other politician he’s discovered how tired we politicians sounded and found a way of re-inspiring people with language – because when you use it beautifully, people hear something true.”... the article also includes a couple of deserved back-handed swipes at Harper for attempting to isolate Ignatieff from Obama during the visit. Harper = petty!
-
So, when he refers to 'we Americans' (his italicization) in this well known piece there are no subtleties, no hidden messages, that we should take him at his word?
OK then.
fellowtraveller, you speak in subtleties and hidden messages... exactly what is it you would like to take Ignatieff at his word for?
-
strictly speaking… the recent Obama executive order calls for the handling of detainees in accordance with the U.S. Army field manual: Army FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
might there be initiatives to further adjust that manual? Possibly; however, as of today… that U.S. Army field manual includes numerous appendices and, in particular, Appendix M – Restricted Interrogation Technique – Separation, which allows for the use of sleep and sensory deprivation and isolation - termed “separation”.
specifically to the raised point concerning sleep deprivation, the manual states --- “Use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting four hours of continuous sleep every 24 hours.”
-
your empty suit rhetoric pales in comparison to the attacks from the Republicans on candidate Obama’s legitimacy during the U.S. presidential election campaign. He has a significant resume, both political and educational. Perhaps you subscribe to the Rush Limpballs school openly advocating for an Obama failure. I do believe Obama has his Secretary of State now… no need for your Kissinger obscufication.His education isn't worth the paper its printed on. he has no policital resume aside from voting present on a good number of bills during his campaign for president. I doubt he ever sat long enough in his senate seat to leave an imprint in it
sssshhhhh - don't let it out... apparently, that Obama Harvard education helps one attain the highest political office in the land... hey now! Doesn't that Ignatieff fellow also have a Harvard education? Stay tuned.
as for your continued rehashing of the recent U.S. presidential campaign, that Obama voting record has been so thoroughly scrutinized, it’s a shame you can’t move yourself off the Palin points and actually latch onto some of that free-thinking scrutiny.
- yes, Obama voted ‘Present’ as an Illinois state senator… 129 times out of approximately 4000 votes cast – 3% of his votes. 3%. Of those 129 Present votes, about half are attributed to votes cast with other Democratic senators following Democratic party tactical strategies… along with another grouping of his Present votes that were part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. Each and every one of those 129 Present votes, the 3% of his total voting history, endured the heavy scrutiny of the Republicans during the U.S. Presidential campaign. And yet… you have the audacity to bring it up again.
- as for a rigorous accounting of Obama’s U.S. Congressional Senate voting record, positions, quotes… read Obama's record and gain some respect.
-
...they but it in a pdf format on the internet with scanned picture of the text so you could (not) use text search features on it. It was put at midnight before the vote that it was even released.
ok, ok... can not help myself - thanks for the genuine laugh... note: I've helped you out by adding your missing "not" (bold enhanced for the Rush Limpballs groupies).
ya see, poor ole Rush Limpballs has been raked over the coals with that little gem... apparently he... and I guess you as you parrot one of your heroes... aren't aware that .pdf files can actually be text searched. Beauty - keep em coming!
-
All Obama ever could do was enthrall people with his speeches he is nothing but an empty suit helped by Henry Kissenger.
your empty suit rhetoric pales in comparison to the attacks from the Republicans on candidate Obama’s legitimacy during the U.S. presidential election campaign. He has a significant resume, both political and educational. Perhaps you subscribe to the Rush Limpballs school openly advocating for an Obama failure. I do believe Obama has his Secretary of State now… no need for your Kissinger obscufication.
-
Facism is not on the right side of the spectrum.
Really... the google is your friend
No history books are my friend. leftwing academa has perpetuated the myth of facists being right wing as they are too proud to admit that it was their ilk that wanted to dable in Facism at the turn of the century. They wanted to give you something to fear on the right so they would be able to enact their social policies.but, but, but... where do them there social conservatives fit within your profound revelations? What's being used to set fear (and damnation!) upon social conservatives to enable their social policy enactments?
really, c'mon - you should give yourself a well deserved wikipedia break
-
Regime change....any questions?
of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. But, of course, we all know how you (the U.S.) did a PNAC sponsored end-around in the name of an imminent attack/threat based on the falsified Iraqi WMD threat and the bogus claims of Iraq’s nuclear program.
really now… you want to put that one in the win column – with a foundation based on lies and deceit. And here we thought all you neocon types had gone silent/underground. Any questions?
And this is a problem because???? Didn't seem to bother PM Chretien when he bombed Serbia years before.A win is a win....except for you guys!
the U.S. led/influenced NATO campaign in Yugoslavia? That’s your go-to to substantiate the Iraqi debacle?
only the truly deluded would still attempt to rationalize a failed pre-emptive “Bush doctrine” strategy against a sovereign Iraq nation that posed no imminent threat to the U.S… that had no ties to 9-11… that had no links to Al-Qaeda. That’s your regime change win?
and no, a win is not a win; rather, an honourable, substantiated and properly sanctioned win… is a win… except for (some) of you guys!
-
Fascism is not on the right side of the spectrum.
-
Yes....Iraq goes in the win column. Canada was in the bleachers eating popcorn.
wahoo! Mission Accomplished - wait... what was the mission? What was accomplished?
Regime change....any questions?
of course you know that war predicated on regime change is in breach of international law. But, of course, we all know how you (the U.S.) did a PNAC sponsored end-around in the name of an imminent attack/threat based on the falsified Iraqi WMD threat and the bogus claims of Iraq’s nuclear program.
really now… you want to put that one in the win column – with a foundation based on lies and deceit. And here we thought all you neocon types had gone silent/underground. Any questions?
-
Yes....Iraq goes in the win column. Canada was in the bleachers eating popcorn.
wahoo! Mission Accomplished - wait... what was the mission? What was accomplished?
-
Very "winnable"....just a matter of cost.
I'm glad this crew wasn't running the show back in 1941.
would that be kinda like that winning cost in Iraq? - what did that, uhhh... win... cost (monetary, lives, world standing, etc., etc., etc.). Hey now - is that one actually in the win column? Ah, whatever - that Iraq thingee is so old news - kinda like bush_cheney
-
Its ok to use sleep deprivation as long as the tortured subject gets essential rest. Iggy is Torture light.
other than your personal sense of morality - of right/wrong - you have no substantive foundation to attach a torture label ("light" or otherwise) to coercive interrogation - that doesn't involve stress or duress.
.
.
exactly how is your "torture light" labeling, inconsistent with Canadian law, inconsistent with international conventions, inconsistent with our international obligations? Exactly how is your "torture light" labeling, outside the traditions of the Canadian Charter and the applicable laws? Exactly how is your "torture light" labeling above and beyond democratic scrutiny?
I know backpeddling when I see it. It is 2009......
are you looking in a mirror - at yourself - backpeddling. If you won't - can't - answer the questions posed.....
Ignatieff The American
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
apparently, madmax is in recycle mode…
we’ve previously addressed the Iraq position - Ignatieff’s NYT article clearly makes the case for the judgement made, for politicians acknowledging their mistakes, for distinctions between academia and political realities, etc.
we’ve previously addressed the position on coercive interrogation that doesn't involve stress or duress – we’ve had Ignatieff quotes offered that clearly show his position against torture… such as, (again):
an outstanding request remains to show where Ignatieff's position is inconsistent with any of the above... still waiting.
you (madmax) made a claim that sleep deprivation had been banned from Guantanamo… you kept needling with your “light” labelling. You have yet to acknowledge my post that repudiated that claim, where I stated, (again):
oh wait, there is something new here, after all… that scurrilous article includes a reference to Ignatieff being an “advocate for American exceptionalism in defiance of international law.” A one liner drive-by with nothing offered to substantiate the stated advocacy. In the face of nothing else offered, I will certainly take the liberty of assuming the statement relates to Ignatieff’s book, “American Exceptionalism and Human Rights”. You know, the much reviewed book that includes an introduction from Ignatieff together with the essays of eleven leading experts in such fields as international relations and international law – a book that seeks to show and explain how America's approach to human rights differs from that of most other Western nations. An Ignatieff book that received such glowing reviews as:
oh yes – certainly… how dare Ignatieff bring discourse to the subject of “American exceptionalism” and Human Rights! To label the book, to label Ignatieff an “advocate for defying international law”… from the writings of a 2-bit blogger… shameful.