kimmy

He wants a cake that he's already eaten. -k

And wouldn't you think it could be an important strategy not to be seen to be guilty of petty finger-pointing themselves, but rather let other people do it .... ... and if the "other people" didn't do it (or notice it), all they need is to have a few "friends" post info about it on a few sites like this.... Absurd. The Liberals won't attempt to make an issue of it, because whatever tiny amount of mileage might be in "bad manners" as an election issue would be more than wiped out by contradicting the message they've been trying to push all year-- Harper and Duceppe as buddies. As for not want to appear guilty of petty finger-pointing, just wait until January. The Liberals themselves have already promised a very negative campaign, and they promised that they're going to begin in earnest in January. So no, don't imagine for a minute that they're worried about appearing above petty finger pointing. This is going to get very ugly. -k

It shows a deep lack of respect for someone he was in bed with just last month.... I think is shows his untrustworthyness very well.... Wow, that's a broad group, naming orthogonal sets of people who won't vote for Harper.... Thanks for providing an example.Simple question: if this was such a big faux-pas by Harper, why haven't any of Harper's opponents tried to take advantage? If it was a mistake by Harper, wouldn't his opponents be quick to capitalize on it? I'm pretty sure that the Liberal campaign strategists have a better grasp on what will score points with voters than you or I. So I'll tell you what. If Martin starts talking about this event during his speeches, or if the Liberals use this in their advertising, then I'll say "Wow, I guess you were right, err." -k

Talk about a disgusting scumbag.... Brian Muroney, because there was rumour of an investigation into his involvment in the Airbus scandal, sued the Canadian government ..... there's love of country.... Someone who loves the country wouldn't file suit against the government no matter what? -k

Really? To "defend the Charter", all you have to do is not use the notwithstanding clause? Cool! It's a lot easier than it sounds! I'm doing it right now! So vowing not to use the notwithstanding clause on SSM makes Harper a defender of the Charter too? -k

Hey, I've got a big fat expert opinion who disagrees: Yup, you said it. Click here for details. How is it, eureka, that 2 months ago you considered the GST to be "unquestionably a regressive tax", but now you argue the opposite? Have you uncovered surprising new research in the past 2 months to reverse your opinion of the subject? At what point in the past 2 months did the GST cease being regressive? Was it the exact moment at which Harper said he planned to reduce the GST? I'm very interested to hear the details of what changed your mind and when you came to this decision. -k

I've proven you wrong on this twice already, and each time you ignore the facts and go on repeating the same lie in different threads. I ask again: are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better? -k

I have a question... can anybody explain for me what "defend the Charter" actually means? I mean, Paul Martin and the Liberals have used this phrase so often that it sounds meaningful. But what are they actually talking about? Does defending the Charter require, like, any action or some sort of activity? I just don't get it. What does that mean? -k

I'm sure Liberal strategists are salivating at the thought of running video of Harper giving Duceppe the "back off" gesture in response to the offered handshakes. What could be better, especially after Martin has spent the past year trying to depict Harper and Duceppe as best buddies? If the Liberals want to try and turn this into an election issue, feel free. Meanwhile, I'm sure that this will find a lot of traction with the same people who considered the "Do you love Canada?" question hard-hitting journalism. You know. Dumb-guys, and people who were already dead-set on voting against Harper anyway. -k

"Small-c" conservatives are going to leave the Conservative party because Harper says he won't invoke the Notwithstanding clause? Ok, so who are these "small-c" conservatives going to vote for instead? -k

What makes you think other formats would produce more substance? Letting the leaders interact with each other more won't generate substantive debate, it'll generate even more theatrics as they try to find the right soundbite, impress the viewer with their stage-presence, or try to misrepresent each others' positions. Do you think that would be informative? I think it would be a huge waste of time. I think, if you want to hear one party try to spin another party's policies into a bad light, you can find sections like that on their websites. -k

UN observers said there were high levels of participation even in Sunni areas of the country. If that's the case, their participation adds legitimacy to the process. It will further marginalize the insurgents: if the whole country is participating in the elections, it somewhat undermines the claim that they're fighting to free the country. -k

I agree that all of the leaders did well in some respects. Layton, I think, is by far the most polished speaker. Confident, good body language, good vocal tone, assertive, he always seems to have the words on the tip of his tongue. He seems very bright and very well prepared. I disagree that it was bush-league of him to keep saying to vote NDP. I think it was probably something that might have connected with some segment of the electorate. When a lot of people are disenchanted with politics in general and Canada's party politics in particular, Layton was trying to keep punching at the message that people have the option and tell them that their vote relates directly to having this or that NDP policy get pushed in the house of commons. I thought it was a good message. For Harper, I think more than attempting to beat up on Martin or whatever, it was most important to be positive-- both in the sense of not seeming like the scary angry guy he's been depicted as, and also in the sense of showing that he has policies and goals and isn't just running on the platform of trashing Martin's record. I think for the most part Harper did a good job of being positive in both senses. For Duceppe, I though during last year's english debate he felt no pressure to play safe, avoid mistakes, win friends, or whatever, and just came out in a manner that seemed straightforward. I think a lot of people outside Quebec were quite impressed with him at the time because his directness seemed like such a refreshing change from all the evasiveness we'd come to expect. This time around, I didn't feel as though Duceppe was quite as appealing, and he struggled with English more than I though he did last time. But overall, I think his goal was just to pummel Martin more on Quebec issues, like the "fiscal imbalance" and the sponsorship scandal, and I think he was probably pretty successful at that. For Martin, I thought much of his debate tonight was pretty forgettable. Wishy-washy answers to some of the tougher questions, and for much of the other stuff, his answers were easily dismissed by Layton ("more broken promises") and Duceppe ("just more talk"). But the one thing I think that most people will remember from tonight's debate was how passionate Martin seemed when he talked about national unity. When people think back on the debate tomorrow as they drink their coffee and read their paper, I expect that Martin's emotional challenge to Duceppe is probably what most of them will remember. And so grudgingly, I think Paul Martin was probably the winner. -k

I never really considered myself a right winger before I arrived here, but everybody else on the forum seems to think I am. I doubt I'd qualify as being "from the right" in your opinion, but whatever. A reason that I (as well as shoop and others, I assume) like to use "mainstream" media sources in these discussions is that it eliminates an issue of contention right away. If I'm debating with someone and I reach for a media source that they're skeptical of, they'll tend to scoff at the information I'm presenting. But if I offer a media source that they accept, they have to confront the information rather than dismissing the source. Backing up your claims with hard facts can help your argument. News stories beat opinion columns. News stories that can be verified from a number of national media sources beat single-source items from local outlets or blogs. Hard facts, when they're available, beat pretty much everything. A link to the text of Bill C-250 beats someone's claims of what's in Bill C-250 or a news-article summary of debate on Bill C-250. If I'm discussing something in a thread and I link to an article from CBC, it doesn't mean I'm a CBC fan. I do it because I can move the discussion forward by posting information from a source that the person I'm writing to will accept. If I was writing to you, I'd link to the National Post before the Globe'n'Mail or Toronto Star, but if I was writing for a general audience on this board, I'd go with the G'n'M or Torstar because the people most likely to disagree with me are people who most likely accept the G'n'M and Torstar as good sources. -k

Why would the parties agree to this format? Because pretty much everybody came out of last years' debates looking bad. The frequent interruptions and Jack Layton constantly attempting to blather over everyone's statements really added nothing to the debate, except made it look like squabbling children. -k

I honestly think Harper's problem is that he tends to think a lot. Ask most politicians whether they love Canada, and their analysis of the question is "the people want to hear me say I love Canada," and react according. Ask Harper if he loves Canada, his reaction is to assume he's being asked to address underlying issues like what he wants to change, how he would fight separatism and regionalism, what's wrong with government, and so on. I think most grown-ups would be a little embarrassed to be standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!" But the thing with Martin is that he understands that there's a segment of the population (kids, Molson-drinkers, and dumb-guys, most likely) that considers this a rivetting revelation. Martin, as a professional politician, can put aside his feelings of embarrassment at doing something stupid so that he can reach out to those young, dumb-guy, and Molson-buying voters. Harper, on the otherhand, like most grown men, would just feel stupid and embarrassed standing on a podium shouting "I LOVE CANADA!!!" And really, who can blame him. But that's the difference between a politician and a normal person. A politician is somebody who can put aside his embarrassment at acting like an idiot if it gives him the chance to appeal to dumb-guy voters. -k

Hello, Hasan. You've posted a list of a lot of the things that tend to create a negative image when westerners think of Islam. I can only assume you were trying to spark a reaction or provoke some debate on the issue. What is the "Surah" section of the Quran? The interviews you posted (very interesting, by the way) says that the amputation as a punishment for theft was part of "Hudud" and seems to say that Hudud is not an important part of Islamic law. Can that be said of all of the "Surah" statements you posted? One can go through the Old Testament and find statements that cast Jewish and Christian scripture in a bad light as well, so I know not to judge the whole religion based on a few statements taken out of context. So, if you could, please provide us some context for the "Surah" statements that you posted earlier. -k

It's been proven to you repeatedly that the bill had nothing to do with gay bashing, and addressed only the issue of broadening the definition of propaganda. Harper's concern-- that the bill infringed on religious speech-- is a valid one, and I posted a critique from lawyers who feel that the protection promised religious speech in the revised law is inadequate. click here for details. quick recap: (emphasis added by me) Norman, you continue to peddle the line that the bill was about gay bashing. Why is that? Are you being intentionally dishonest, or do you honestly not know any better? -k

In that case, if anybody would like to get a copy hosted, ask Kiraly to do it. -kimmy

Oh, of course not. All merit, I'm sure. But having the right connections certainly can't hurt. -k

I didn't watch the debate, but I did watch some of the follow-up on CTV with Mike Duffy. I've got a question: why do they put spinmeisters from the parties on the wrap-up discussion panels? Rather than have actual journalists, or even a "focus group" evaluate the content of the debate, they give big chunks of their post-debate coverage to party officials like Liberal spinmeister Michael Eizinga, NDPer Joy McPhail, CPC spinmeister Fatty McButterpants, and some French goof who used to be a PQ MNA. Rather than discuss what the leaders said during the debate, the CTV wrap-up (and every other post-debate show I've ever seen) chose instead to give these party hacks a chance to blather away at their party's favorite talking points. Essentially it winds up looking like a cut-rate, made in Canada rip-off of Crossfire, except with crosstalk coming from 4 directions instead of just 2 (and without the fag with the bowtie.) How is this valuable to the viewer? I don't want to watch partisan hacks wage a second debate of their own. I want objective analysis. Is that so much to ask? -kimmy

I saved a copy of the speech. If anybody wishes, I could find someplace to host it. The points that the article singles out for criticism: He's quite obviously correct, although it might not be politically correct to say so this bluntly. Lessee. A right-wing speaker entertaining a right wing audience by jesting about the lefties... this is the stuff of controversy? uh... Was he wrong? These are all facts, are they not? Sounds like something Eureka has been trying to convince me of for a long time. Eureka often argues that there's no way a country with provincial and federal divisions of power as they are in Canada can continue to exist. And yet it does. Harper notes that Canada, in 1997 under Chretien and Martin, had already begun moving to the right in fiscal and economic policy; whether Harper is correct on the subject of social policy depends how broadly one defines the term.Is there any debate as to whether Chretien and Martin had been taking the country on a decidedly right wing economic and fiscal course in the mid 1990s? In a speech at the U of A this past year, the CBC's Avi Lewis singled out Martin's 1995 budget as the single biggest victory in history for Canada's right wing. As to whether Canada was moving to the right socially in 1997, well, that's debateable. In 1997, we did not yet have same sex marriage, there has been no change or attempt to change abortion access in Canada since Mulroney was in power. And a variety of measures were being taken towards "victim's rights" and "getting tough on crime", probably in some measure due to appease voters who got all riled up because of Reform's enthusiasm for these issues. In some respects Canada could certainly have been said to be moving to the right on social issues at the time, though Harper was wrong in predicting that this would continue. Really, none of this stuff seems terribly controversial. To me it seems maybe more like looking back through old high school yearbooks and receiving a painful reminder that you really were that dorky back in 1997. Harper, like your fugly highschool mugshot, tells the truth, as painful as it might be. -k

The NDP wouldn't want to be associated with this dude for obvious reasons, much the same as the Conservatives try to distance themselves from religious kooks or the Liberals try to avoid being associated with ...well I won't go there. Point is, just because this twit purports to be an NDP supporter doesn't mean they're responsible for his behavior. They probably wish he would keep his "help" to himself. -k

If my dad could get me a job as Maurice Strong's personal assistant, I bet I could make millions through my own efforts too. -k

Don't sweat it. Easy to see why people would assume McGuinty hates Martin, because he sure acts like it. -k