waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Check Wiki for Iggy doing the rumba on this, and you can watch him shake his professor booty here
yes, again... that Prospect article - same ole, same ole.
As Ignatieff states in that Prospect article:
"So I end upsupporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress,and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods."so, apparently then, Ignatieff supports that there non-stressful relaxing kind of torture. Is there a problem?
rumba? shakin da booty? Really, fellowtraveller? Did you actually bother to read your linked-to article, or do you just parrot the standard talking points?
-
Ivy League schooling does not teach you to say you support torture and then 'change your mind' after it becomes clear it's a highly unpopular position in the country you're trying to run for office in.
citation request advising exactly where/when and in what context Ignatieff stated he supported torture.
-
The Liberal brass threw a hail mary and it paid off big time. Look for the Libs to win the next election with a strong minority, and the tories in house cleaning mode.
I believe the correct analogy had the Liberal's intercepting the CPC pass, stopping the attempted CPC 'killer drive' in it's tracks. The injured Dion had to be taken out of the game... the alternate QB, Ignatieff, masterfully calling audibles, successfully managed to move the Liberal's forward, pushing the CPC ever farther away from the majority end-zone. The CPC have taken heavy hits, Harper is bloodied, their fans are booing loudly... it appears the Liberal's have the game in hand, the trophy in sight. All is well - the natural winning team is poised to assume it's rightful position.
-
How do you purpose to bring waiting lists down? They only thing that our current system will allow for is more cash pumped into a failing system.
perk up, bucky - as Alberta weasels it's way towards increased privatization, your pinhead Health Minister has been instrumental in hiring an 'outside health care visionary' to head Alberta's health care system... an Australian, no less! - crikey, apparently there were no qualified persons in Alberta or Canada.
Alberta appoints new president of province's health-care system
an Aussie "agent of change" who was primed to say the right thing out of the gate... "Public funding of health services is a core principle of medicare and that, as far as I’m concerned, is not on the agenda".
as the linked article states:
"He might, however, look at expanding private delivery of publicly funded services to bring wait times down, as he did in Queensland. There, he also introduced a system where operating rooms stayed open on weekends. He also changed the funding system to reward hospitals that met certain targets, rather than funding hospitals in a way that rewarded long waiting lists."the revamped hospital funding approach is one of his claims to fame: hospitals would no longer receive a fixed yearly budget... rather, they would be funded, ultimately, on the number of patients processed. Get 'em up, move 'em out, Rawhide!
-
yes I have written for the need of our system to change, I have contacted mlas written letters to the editor, I have sold insurance policies to people that will give choice to seek medical treatment outside of Canada. I have fought this one size fits all system for the last 8 years.
one could lobby for additional federal funding and increased provincial efficiencies - within a (our) single tier medical system... or
one could presume towards change in the form of two-tier services under some "misguided" premise that this will actually improve wait times on the public side.
what say ye?
-
Sarcasm just doesn't work over the internet.
The point I was trying to make with the quote was that He thinks that Canadians only trump the party from time to time. So in other words the party is almost always more important then the average Canadian. He is showing that he is just like any other liberal getting back into power is the number 1 priority.
does deflecting sarcasm work well - over the internet? C'mon - as if I thought you actually offered up a genuine non-partisan moment. Hey now... that would make my previous reply to you... sarcastic!
as for the point you tried to make at Ignatieff's expense - sorry, fail.
-
The great and noble leader
“I felt that it was not appropriate at a time of great economic uncertainty to add political uncertainty on top of it,” he said. “As a politician I want my party to win, but you do have to think of the country from time to time.” - Ignatieff
this is a very fine non-partisan comment for you to make - thank you for appreciating one of Ignatieff's rationales for providing budget support and allowing a semblance of political certainty to form... subject to the periodic reviews to substantiate the effectiveness of the budget.
-
http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/...?issn=0820-3946
Wait-list weary Canadians seek treatment abroad
Canadian Medical Association Journal - Volume 174, Issue 9 (April 2006) - Copyright © 2006 Canadian Medical Association
you were caught with your pants down earlier - the question to you was appropriate.
at this point, I'm not questioning wait times (Canada vs. U.S.); however, I would suggest that if you propose to broadly, without specificity, imply U.S. wait times are significantly better than Canadian wait times... you would be better served than to supply a linked article that includes the statement: "At press time, MedSolution was in the process of sending 6 US patients to its partner hospitals in India and France for surger(y)…"
-
He (Harper) has done things a lot different then Jean Chretien. During his (Chretien's) rein more infrastructure money was spent in his riding then in the whole province of Alberta.Really? Where did you read that?I didn't read it I heard it from a former MP that i chat with on occasion.
anecdotal semi-name dropping case closed - Yeesh!
-
So do I. I wear glasses so I can see the forest and the trees. Try some, LOL maybe you will see the Convenient Canadian as the charleton he is.
rose coloured - no doubt.
I recall the 'Ignatieff reading for his wife' appeared within the Mercer video... it's hard to imagine that a caring/loving gesture could be interpreted as anything but. Oh right - your glasses are tinted - sorry.
-
Waldo, I take it you think those emails in your link to the Takacs blog are genuine? They're not. That blog entry by Takacs was meant as satire as is evident by the comments at the bottom of the blog and the tags entries.
stop it! you're killing me... those emails - that thread - it's 100% genuine. Sandy Crux told me so.
-
EDIT:
I just read a comment on a Liberal blog that made a hypothetical that I had not considered. Basically, that the deal probably was "you pass the budget, and we'll drop the lawsuit".
there's a good reason you had to read that hypothetical nonsense from a, as you say, "Liberal blog" - cause it's so eerily quiet on the blogging Tory front. Quiet except for this widely circulating email thread from some of the more prolific Harper fluffers:
Conservatives Score Monumental Win in Cadman Case!
oh my! For something that was such a slam dunk... for something that was so airtight! Ya, ya - the Tories dropped their Harper defamation lawsuit cause they're so committed to the new spirit of co-operation! You betcha.
-
John Baird .... He even once submitted a receipt for .89 for Timbits. That's how cheap he is.
oh please - too funny! He's a complete buffoon - thanks for allowing me start my weekend with a genuine laugh.
-
When John Baird was head of children's services in Ontario he came out with much fanfare about massive spending for the Children of Ontario. Turns out that the majority of the spending was in his own riding to assure re-election. (The rest of the spending was a myth)
and - of course - Baird has his fingerprints all over this - conporker extraordinaire!
-
the tale of tape (experts) - quite telling
These malicious and reckless defamatory statements impugn the reputation of Prime Minister Stephen Harperapparently, the litigious Harper retreats
-
and you would equate spending with equalization payments?
oh ya =>
Like to edit your nonsense? -
it's just sooooo confusing - mere months back we were conditioned to anticipating a 'nominal' impact to Canada (Mr. Harper reassured us)... there was even talk of slight surplus - which moved on to minimal deficits - which thundered on to massive deficits.
Look at the US, at Iceland, at the UK. This IS a nominal impact.
Because your people insisted that they would bring down the government without massive "stimulus" projects.
and there it is - according to your statement, the budget stimulus (the "massive" stimulus), is because the Liberals made "your people" do it... "your people" were sooooo concerned about losing power they abandoned their so-called conservative principles and caved to the pressure of mighty Ignatieff. Accepting the reality is a first step - good on ya.
I expect those still with jobs might smugly - and dismissively - presume nominal impact...
-
it's just sooooo confusing - mere months back we were conditioned to anticipating a 'nominal' impact to Canada (Mr. Harper reassured us)... there was even talk of slight surplus - which moved on to minimal deficits - which thundered on to massive deficits.
even more perplexing is the silly posturing from the rascally bunch who admonished Ignatieff for not bringing the government down - for not piling on to Harper's wasted perogy Parliament time - for actually wanting to push for relative immediacy in applying economic stimulus. Cause, apparently, jobs are being lost - go figure!
What stimuls a few lines the coalition put to paper that had no direction or plan? The time that would have take to transfer from one government to another? Live in reality not the dream you have in your head. You think things are bad under Harper? The market instablity that woudl have been created by the void of government stability would have been enormus, we would have seen the TSX fall farther then it did. It would have been late march early april before a budget would have been produced.
If you think things are bad now, the coalition would have compounded the problem.
huh! your reading comprehension appears skewed as I said/implied nothing about favouring the coalition in my post - read it again... cause ya see, I'm highlighting Ignatieff not pulling the plug and bringing Harper down - Ignatieff actually wanting to push for relative immediacy in applying the economic stimulus within Harper's non-conservative budget. Cause, apparently there is a lost jobs problem. Will someone please inform Harper.
-
it's just sooooo confusing - mere months back we were conditioned to anticipating a 'nominal' impact to Canada (Mr. Harper reassured us)... there was even talk of slight surplus - which moved on to minimal deficits - which thundered on to massive deficits.
even more perplexing is the silly posturing from the rascally bunch who admonished Ignatieff for not bringing the government down - for not piling on to Harper's wasted perogy Parliament time - for actually wanting to push for relative immediacy in applying economic stimulus. Cause, apparently, jobs are being lost - go figure!
-
this has proven that Danny Williams has more control over a peice of the liberal caucus then the new liberal party leader.
lame partisan NP editorial analysis, albeit a significant factual acknowledgment is included:
Indeed, if you set out to count the provinces that have never played this game, you would have genuine trouble getting past zero.next
-
in the face of your failed attempt to disparage Ignatieff, certainly, an apology would be helpful... for the appearances sake you speak of.
waldo, what do you mean apologize? A Liberal blogger reported that Ignatieff didn't contribute to the party and provided data from the Elections Canada site to support his claim. Initially, no mention was made of the Laurier Club. I'm not the only one who accepted that information at face value. In fact, even some Liberals did.
notwithstanding your face value acceptance of a dubious report, you attempted to use it to belittle Ignatieff for, presumptively, not contributing to his own party. No apology is necessary – I simply said it would be helpful… whimpering that you weren’t the only one is a mildly sufficient retraction – thank you.
-
I wonder if the new fundraiser will advise Ignatieff that he really should make a small contribution to the party in 2009, you know, for appearances sake. I mean, any amount would beat his contribution for 2008 which amounted to $0.00.
in the face of your failed attempt to disparage Ignatieff, certainly, an apology would be helpful... for the appearances sake you speak of.
-
He's the Ralph Klien of the east
please - do you have a citation showcasing Danny Williams' pugilistic skills against the homeless?
-
So far everyone wants to talk about something else and are too scared to admit that their parties suck at raising funds compared to the Tories.
apparently, some event transpired such that the Liberals raised more money in December than the CONS... what happened? Anyone? Anyone?
2008 Federal Election Food for Thought
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by waldo
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.
as Ignatieff clearly states in that Macleans article:
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?