kimmy

HI CHUCKMAN WELCOEM TO TEH FORUM Isn't there an internet tradition that goes something along the lines of "First guy to invoke 'Hitler' automatically loses the debate"? It's a surefire way to get your message filed under "desperate, frothing-at-the-mouth hyperbole." Sorry, Chuck, thanks for playing. As a proud descendent of Minnesota Swedes, I'm certainly one of the Albertans with American background you're referring to. How dare you suggest I'm any less Canadian for my background, you stupid flaming piece of crap. And how typical of people like you, trying to preserve the Liberal grasp on power by driving wedges between Canadians. On Monday, this kind of crap is going to fail. Go hide in your bunker, Chuck. Be afraid of what's coming. Goodbye and good riddance, asshole. -k

I work odd hours and usually do my posting in the late morning and early afternoon, and sometimes late at night when I get home. One reason there might be less activity on weekends is that weekends usually have less political news going on. -k

Would I pay to watch it? Not a penny. I know that financial profit is a motivation for virtually every movie that gets made. However, to me this seems a step beyond. "Karla" is produced by American producers, written by American writers, and has an American cast, yet they seem to have not bothered to secure American distribution for the film. To me, the implication is that they heard that this story was big news in Canada and sought to cash in; that they haven't secured distribution in the United States says that they don't believe that without the morbid interest Canadians have for the Homolka story, the movie has no appeal. To me that's the distinction here, the difference between making a movie with the hope of making a solid product that makes a profit, compared with making a movie with the hope of cashing in and exploiting a tragedy. Many years ago, a TV movie was made about the Colin Thatcher case. An American network purchased the right to show the movie to American audiences. Although American audiences had no idea who Colin Thatcher was or what he did, the network believed that the movie was compelling and that it stood on its own merits. Karla, reviewers have said, doesn't stand on its own merits. A movie analyst I saw interviewed about Karla (sorry, don't recall who was interviewed or what network it was on) described it as a "B movie". Here is a description of "B movies" from Wikipedia, for August's benefit The analyst I saw interviewed said that a movie of the calibre of "Karla" would normally run in a small number of theatres, but Karla is being run in over 100 theatres, a far larger amount than it would warrant if not for the infamy surrounding Homolka. I suppose people have the right to try to cash in, but I certainly hope they fail miserably in this instance. -k

It's a legitimate concern, but a minor one. Is it better to have a guy who is unproven, or a guy who has proven he's incompetent? I personally would choose the former. And as I've mentioned, all signs indicate that Paul Martin is finished as Liberal leader even if he wins this election. His replacement as Liberal leader will be inexperienced as well. -k

I've already responded to your previous criticisms of Harper. As for Harper's inexperience on the world stage, sure. I agree. I just don't think it's a major issue-- not when compared to all of Paul Martin's shortcomings and the personal baggage he carries. And here's an interesting thought: Paul Martin's own party is going to axe him after this election anyway, and whoever takes his place will be inexperienced on the world stage too. -k {You really think we should choose a party that we know is going to be picking a new leader shortly?}

Paul Martin does indeed have a proven track record. He has proven that he's not very good at his job and should find another line of work. I'm sorry, but there it is. The fact that he's been to G8 conferences and rubbed elbows with other world leaders isn't enough to make up for the fact that he's such a weak leader, or for the damage that'll be done to this country if he wins another term in office. For the love of the country, please end the suffering and send Paul Martin back to his sheep farm or his cargo ships or whatever it is he plans to do when he's out of politics. -k

Well, ok. Let's check the scorecard. Negative: Martin has been thoroughly rejected by Quebec. Martin can't even unify his own party. Martin's own allies are turning against him. Martin is a lame duck whose own party is already jockeying to replace him. Martin makes up policy positions on the fly in the middle of debates without even consulting his own people. Martin was as blunt as Harper in saying that we should be in Iraq. Positive: But at least Martin has been to a few G8 conferences. -k

Here's the latest, geoffrey. Axworthy concedes the call was made from his campaign office, but says he believes somebody unconnected with his campaign snuck into his office and used the phone. (perhaps it was the Liberal mole? ) The ongoing coverage at Coyne's blog, however, says that someone notified Vellacott that they recognized the caller's voice as that of George Laliberte, who is apparently known to be Axworthy's associate, crony, henchman, confrere, or similar. -k

That claims to be the "unofficial" Mike Duffy Live forum. I have to ask... WTF? Although the page uses Mike Duffy's name and photo on the front page, is there any reason to believe Mike Duffy is affiliated with this website in any way? If so, why is it an "unofficial" Mike Duffy forum? And if not, why on earth would somebody use Mike Duffy's name and likeness on a forum that he's not involved with? The site moderator has posted a message called "Harper's Holy War on Homos" ...call me naive, if you must, but I doubt a professional national journalist would be associated with something like this. -k

I would think anybody over about 6 years old knows that "kitten eater" is a joke. And anybody over the age of about 13 knows that sexual assault is an accusation that's taken with the utmost seriousness in this country. It's no exaggeration to state that had it not been disproven immediately, this accusation could have had disasterous effect on Mr Vellacott's reputation and his election campaign. If Mr Vellacott pursues legal action over this, he'll have a strong case. Try convincing a judge to take an accusation of "kitten eater" seriously, Boru. -k

Better a man who's inexperienced on the world stage than a man who's proven he's a weak and ineffective leader. I notice you didn't respond to my previous message, Mr Discourse. Are you unwilling, unable, or still trying to locate the appropriate Liberal Party pamphlets? -k

Fair enough. Edmonton doesn't really have much of an independent press, except for "See" magazine, which is basically just an entertainment weekly. -k

eureka contended recently that the "flags of convenience" attack on Paul Martin is the sleaziest thing he has ever seen in politics. Well, I think this item ups the ante in a big way: http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/latest-liberal-attack.php -k

Well, "Chris Parker", your day is going to suck. You have revealed your presence to the wrong person. I am Kimmitaru, and I serve the lords of the Dark Zone. Rest assured that my agents are even now attempting to ascertain your location, and will find you soon. When they do, no power-crystal ever assembled on earth will be strong enough to protect you from the flood of dark orgone energy that will engulf you. NESARA is doomed. Bush, Cheney, and Rove will be freed shortly, when the charade is revealed. The Galactic Federation has walked into a trap that my masters have laid for our enemies, including you. You have been tricked into revealing yourself too soon, and you have sealed your fate. The Star Angels cannot save you. We have a surprise planned for them as well. I won't spoil the surprise, except that they will find themselves trapped in the 7th dimension for 3 eons of pain and suffering. Run, "Chris Parker." Make this entertaining for me. Run to your allies for help, and tell them what is coming for you. And for them. -kimmitaru {Dark Zone Lieutenant of Earth Occupation Forces.}

Well, also in the sense of being new and in the sense of being aimed at a youth-market and having young writers and staff. -k

I wouldn't feel too bad if Anders *stays* lost. -k

What's being said that you object to? I don't think the article is part of some big rightwing conspiracy: this story comes from the Toronto Star, which is pleading for voters to support the Liberals one more time. The Liberals' internal problems have been public knowledge for a long time, and this election has certainly made them all the more clear. Why is pointing them out some kind of underhanded "Rovian" tactic? Paul Martin's leadership, his lame-duck status, and the pending wars within the Liberal party to replace him are all factors that Canadians should contemplate before they cast their ballots. The Liberals' financial problems are certainly interesting news, though not necessarily an election issue. What's wrong with taking a look at the potential impact of an election defeat on the party's financial situation? Canadians have a right to know that in the event of a Harper minority, the Liberal Party will not have the financial capacity of fighting another election any time soon, and as a result a Harper government will almost certainly last longer than Joe Clark's. -k

If you feel a tiny sense of dread before you open your credit-card statement each month, imagine how the Liberals are going to feel after the election: Toronto Star: Liberal pocketbooks are gonna hurt. hmm. -k

I am predicting a late surge for the Kimmy Party. -kimmy {remember to wear your kimmy-hats on Jan 23!}

Answer: I do not agree at all that Martin and Harper had the same response to that situation. Martin said quite bluntly "We should be in Iraq." Answer: Everyone knows that we have been consistently given the finger by our largest trading partner in spite of the fact that we were both diplomatic and polite for the longest time. We showed enormous patience and yet each time we called out how our trading 'partner' was screwing us we again, got the finger. In spite of this the majority of Canadians can appreciate that the current administration is not necessarily representative of all Americans, and we still offer the hand of friendship. That says a lot. No leader of Canada, absolutely none, should just go along with this arrogant and insulting behavior without making a firm stand. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do and it shows enormous patience that it took so long to let those currently running the show with now in the US, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is wrong and we will not put up with it. It is those arrogant people who are currently running the show in the US that worsened the relationship not us. Now in the past, Harper has indicated that he would prefer to have Canada act liek a puppy dog that just goes along with whatever our big neighbor wants. That is not the kind of leader we need. But Paul Martin and his party completely failed to take any action on the issues you're talking about. What have they done about the softwood tarrifs? What did they actually accomplish on beef? Nothing. For all their tough talk about standing up to Americans, the Liberals haven't lifted a finger on these trade issues. Instead, we saw Martin challenge Americans on greenhouse gas emissions, which is ironically an area where they have a much stronger track record than we do. We saw Martin try to lure the American ambassador into this election for political reasons. How is that helpful to a constructive relationship? Answer: Now it is you who is not addressing the point that was raised. Bear in mind that pointing to another political party for comparison is simply avoiding the issue. My answer is that not long ago the Progressive Conservatives and Canadian Alliance were two separate parties and Harper has done an amazing job of unifying them into a cohesive team that has displayed exceptional focus in this campaign. That these two parties have merged and are operating so efficiently and so effectively in such a short time is a strong testament to Harper's leadership. You raised the issue of party unity, so the disunity of the Liberal Party is not a distraction or an attempt to avoid the issue, it is *directly* relevant to the point you wish to discuss. If you believe unity of the governing party is an important consideration, why would you support the Liberals, who have open warfare between different factions of the party? If you believe party unity is an important consideration, how can you support Paul Martin, whose bloodless coup against Jean Chretien and his open campaign to replace his own leader caused a rift in the Liberal party that exists to this day? And why, again, do you believe Canadians should vote to elect a Prime Minister whose own party is already planning his ouster? Answer: I agree that the perception is that the campaign looks less organized. Look, it is nothing to me what you think of Martin but anyone can throw out loose analogies. That is very easy to do. When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores . If a point is worth making and the case is strong enough, it should not need to be be exaggerated. You don't debate the substance of the question, you just dislike the analogy? Very well. I shall rephrase in a direct and analogy-free manner: If Martin is a capable leader, why is his campaign in such confusion? If Martin is a capable leader, why is his party so divided? If Martin is a capable leader, why are members of his own party already planning their campaigns to replace him? If Martin is a capable leader, why is his most trusted and loyal supporter Anne McLellan now saying publicly that Martin's leadership has likely cost her the election? Why do you think that a man who is unable to lead his own party would be a good choice to lead the country? Answer: That is your opinion. I disagree completly. Why do you disagree? Liberal support in Quebec is plunging toward single digit numbers. Quebecers have rejected the Liberal party. The Liberals and their record of scandal in the province had tarnished the name of federalism in Quebec. Answer: Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond. I will name one glaring example. On an interview about the campaign policies, Happer said ... and this is an exact quote: ".. we have introduced some policies in this campaign, and we will probably throw in a couple more before the campaign ends". Those words 'throw in' are very telling. I do not know for sure yet which ones were thrown in but a good indication is one that has broad ramifications that were not fully thought through. As much as I love the idea of avoiding capital gains.. there is increasing awareness that the ramifications of setting the rules, managing, monitoring and implementing this are huge in terms of costs and probably a nightmare for CCRA. Yes, you already mentioned the "we will probably throw in a couple more" quote. However poor the choice of words may have been, it does not indicate that policies have been invented on the fly. All of the Conservatives' major policies were announced early in the campaign, over a month ago. The fact is, there is nothing last minute or on the fly about any of them. I again challenge you to address Martin's pledge to scrap the notwithstanding clause. It didn't appear anywhere in the Liberal policy platform. It's not in the "Red Book". Martin and his aides are unable to say when the policy was actually created or why it doesn't appear in the "Red Book". Anne McLellan-- the Deputy Prime Minister, Martin's closest supporter, a professor of constitutional law for goodness sake-- admitted to a reporter that she knew nothing about the idea until the words came out of Paul Martin's mouth during the debate. If you're concerned about leaders making up "gimmick policies" on the fly to try and get elected, then what better example of that could anyone ask for than Paul Martin announcing in the middle of the debate that he will scrap the notwithstanding clause? Answer: If there is one point I will agree needed to be much better articulated it is this one. I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be. Also - I truly beleive that Harper has spend more time on the election strategy than on a vision for Canada. Ah. Of course. Harper's campaign must be so good because he spends too much time thinking about his campaign and no time thinking about the country. Martin's campaign must be so crappy because he spends no time thinking about his campaign and all his time thinking about his vision for the country. Martin's crappy campaign is proof that he loves the country more! riiiiight -k

Buzz was just on my radio, on the "Rutherford" show, defending his comments. I normally can't be bothered to listen to Rutherford and his ilk, but it's so close to election time and my usual radio station was playing an "Our Lady Peace" song, so I was flipping channels. And there was Buzz. Buzz denies insulting Albertans. He said he worked in Alberta for a while, some of his best friends are Albertans... you know. The same sort of stuff eureka says before saying "too bad they are such ignorami." Buzz stood by his comments, though. He argues that there really are different values across the country. Buzz also contends that the National Citizens Coalition is a "secret society". Buzz denied telling Quebecers to vote Bloc, denies calling Harper a separatist and says he meant that Harper is playing into the hands of separatists. Rutherford failed to challenge Hargrove on any of this, instead going off on the "Albertan" angle and the National Citizens Coalitions. The caller response to Buzz has also focused entirely on the "Albertans have different values" angle. So I guess you were right and I was wrong, August. I thought the spectacle of "Mr Federalism" Paul Martin's buddy telling Quebecers to vote Bloc would be by far the most attention-grabbing aspect of this story, but apparently the playing of the "Alberta card" is what has grabbed people's attention. -k

All the latest, courtesy of Dose. Things seem to be staying pretty stable as we head down the stretch drive. I mostly mention this for the novelty of linking to Dose, which is the little free daily that I grab before I get on the bus. Go, Dose! -k

To me the most likely take-home message for voters was seeing Martin's buddy say Quebecers should vote for the BQ. To me, that's the single impression most likely to grab a casual observer. But maybe, as an Albertan, I don't recognize the impact that calling someone an "Albertan" elsewhere in Canada would have. Is it really such a vicious thing to say about someone? -k

You say you want reasonable discourse, but you haven't responded to any of the replies you've gotten. That doesn't sound like you're here for "reasonable discourse", it sounds like you're just here to proselytize. You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement? You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that? You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected? You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country? You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it. You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause. You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper. But you don't really have a response to any of that, do you. You'll just keep on churning out the same stuff, cross-posting it to different forums, deep in denial of the fact that your guy is a weak lame-duck leader who doesn't even have the backing of his own party anymore, in denial of the fact that the Liberals have driven this country to the brink of a unity crisis. -k

Ah, eureka... Paul Martin is every bit as much a "headwaiter to the provinces" as Harper; he may be moreso. Harper's ideology says that the provinces should have the financial ability to take care of the jurisdictions given them in the constitution. Paul Martin's ideology might be different from that, but we really don't know, as he lacks the courage of whatever convictions he might have. Over and over we've seen Paul Martin bend over backwards to accomodate each and every premier who has come to him with any kind of personal gripe. You don't have a strong federalist to vote for in this election. Failing that, why not at least vote for one who can end regionalism in Canada instead of continuing to increase it? Another Paul Martin government would push this country to the brink. It would put us on a short countdown to a big detonation between Quebec and Ottawa. It would set in motion a fracture that we'll never recover from. -k