nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 I would imagine they don't...mainly because your conclusion is a non sequitor. It won't be the Conservatives calling the next election (unless you mean, not the next scheduled election). Don't be silly. Of course it will be. It's up to the Conservatives whether or not they want to play nice and make a deal to keep parliament alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Don't be silly. Of course it will be. It's up to the Conservatives whether or not they want to play nice and make a deal to keep parliament alive. So the onus is on the Conservatives to play nice....not the other parties....gotcha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Micheal has spent more time INSIDE Canada then the Tories want you to believe. Fact, he was born in 1947 and didn't leave under he was 31 years old. He then went to England, France and other countries working. In 2000, he went to Harvard and in 2005 he came back to Canada. So total he been in Canada for 31+6=37 years. Last time I checked 37 is more than 27! Michael has seen and knows more about the world than Harper could ever learn, it called life experiences. It's a good point about Iggy having a lot of worldly experience (which is obviously a huge plus if you are a head of gov't), however the fact remains that despite the number of years he was in Canada in his younger days, he left in 1978 and never came back until a he saw an opportunity to possibly become PM of Canada. He came back to Canada clearly for his own political opportunism, which obviously irks a lot of Canadians. I guess Canadian universities weren't quite good enough for him until it came time to enter the politics game. Edited January 19, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 So the onus is on the Conservatives to play nice....not the other parties....gotcha! The demands of the opposition aren't abhorrent. It hasn't been the opposition that has been continually scolded for not playing well with others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 It's a good point about Iggy having a lot of worldly experience (which is obviously a huge plus if you are a head of gov't), however the fact remains that despite the number of years he was in Canada in his younger days, he left in 1978 and never came back until a he saw an opportunity to possibly become PM of Canada. He came back to Canada clearly for his own political opportunism, which obviously irks a lot of Canadians. I guess Canadian universities weren't quite good enough for him until it came time to enter the politics game. I think this is garbage. Canada has some great universities but Harvard is Harvard. We should be encouraging tomorrow's generation to pursue their goals to the best of their abilities wherever they may be as that's the only way they're going to be able to compete in the global market place. Instead, we have a Prime Minister essentially telling kids that no matter what your opportunities, leaving the country despite the benefits to your career means you're less of a Canadian. It's despicable. We should be encouraging our citizens to succeed in the global community. Ignatieff did that. In his place, we have a government that sees easy political points in trying to use anti-Americanism to their benefit. Funny, considering Harper's biggest legacy as opposition party was condemning the Liberals anti-Americanism. The speech where he said we should be in Iraq and wishing the coalition well in their mission to overthrow Saddam was a highlight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Canada has some great universities but Harvard is Harvard. Harvad is America's McGill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Don't be silly. Of course it will be. It's up to the Conservatives whether or not they want to play nice and make a deal to keep parliament alive. Ignatieff wants no deals. He's hell bent on gun registration/confiscation. It'll be his nail in the coffin. Edited January 19, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Harvad is America's McGill. If only McGill was actually that good. In every international ranking for the past 5 years U of T has outranked McGill. Usually in or just out of the top 20 universities in the world. McGill has been in the 30s or 40s. Harvard of course, always #1. Oxford? #2. Oh yeah, he taught at both schools. So why is that such a handicap? It seems like we have a group within the CPC filled with either anti-intellectualism or just jealousy that they weren't smart enough to get into such a good school. I'd say both. Edited January 19, 2011 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 As for the attack ads, on all sides they don't work. I heard a volley of folks say about how the last round defined Ignatieff so well but the polls haven't changed much since the last election. Ironically the thing that has swung opinion polls the most over wasn't any attack ad, it was the second prorogation of parliament. Harper went from high 30s to low to mid 30s and not much else changed. At most, attack ads during a writ causes people to stay home because they're disillusioned about the process. The only goal is that more of the other side stays home but there are no guarantees. They also come with the distinct possibility that your own base will resent the negativity and swing their votes. There are no good examples of attack ads winning elections but there are good examples of attack ads losing elections. Kim Campbell's ad attacking Chretien's bell's palsy was a major turning point. Soldiers in the streets from Martin and co. even though it never actually aired, was a gigantic turning point as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 If only McGill was actually that good. In every international ranking for the past 5 years U of T has outranked McGill. Makes you wonder why Ignatieff didn't stay in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Makes you wonder why Ignatieff didn't stay in Canada. Are you being intentionally stupid or are you just naturally a moron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 . Funny, considering Harper's biggest legacy as opposition party was condemning the Liberals anti-Americanism. The speech where he said we should be in Iraq and wishing the coalition well in their mission to overthrow Saddam was a highlight. How is this different from Ignatieff saying that the war was justified? Even more than that Ignatieff said... America's empire is not like empires of times past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man's burden. We are no longer in the era of the United Fruit Company, when American corporations needed the Marines to secure their investments overseas. The 21st century imperium is a new invention in the annals of political science, an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E6DA143FF936A35752C0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=The Burden Ignatieff&st=cse&pagewanted=1 He fully justifies the Iarq war and no doubt, like Harper, would have wanted Canada to participate had we have been able... But who exactly is the we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 stupid.... moron...? Losing debate again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 How is this different from Ignatieff saying that the war was justified? Even more than that Ignatieff said... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E6DA143FF936A35752C0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=The Burden Ignatieff&st=cse&pagewanted=1 He fully justifies the Iarq war and no doubt, like Harper, would have wanted Canada to participate had we have been able... But who exactly is the we? I don't think it is different but then again my party isn't the one using anti-Americanism at the moment. I never supported the Liberals doing it under Chretien, especially that windbag Carolyn Parish. I mean, it's one thing to not support what the US government does, but there's a way you deal with your partners even if you disagree. I still don't get it. It seems our entire environmental policy is being drafted in the US but Ignatieff can't be Prime Minister because he lived there for a while? At least he isn't selling out our policy process directly to the US. Saying anything else is absolutely ludicrous. It's the height of hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Losing debate again? Nope, how could I? I'm not the one pretending a part of a post doesn't exist to make my point. Makes you wonder why he didn't stay in Canada? Maybe because Harvard and Oxford are the best schools in the world. Wouldn't you want to work at the best place in the world for your career? I mean, you're an immigrant, right? At least that's what you said on another thread. You should understand that more than most. Yet, you're mocking a man for going abroad for a better opportunity despite the fact you DID IT YOURSELF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 I don't think it is different but then again my party isn't the one using anti-Americanism at the moment. At the moment...might have something to do with the combination of Obama in power and Bob Rae not... I still don't get it. It seems our entire environmental policy is being drafted in the US but Ignatieff can't be Prime Minister because he lived there for a while? At least he isn't selling out our policy process directly to the US. Saying anything else is absolutely ludicrous. It's the height of hypocrisy. The US has had a stricter environmental policy that Canada...which gave lip service under chretion to Kyoto, and did bugger all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 The US has had a stricter environmental policy that Canada...which gave lip service under chretion to Kyoto, and did bugger all for it. Does it matter? Why is it that the current government lacks the imagination to impose as strict standards in a way that suits the Canadian economy better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) I still don't get it. It seems our entire environmental policy is being drafted in the US but Ignatieff can't be Prime Minister because he lived there for a while? At least he isn't selling out our policy process directly to the US. Saying anything else is absolutely ludicrous. It's the height of hypocrisy. Harper's environment policy is practically non-existent and he's not making it a priority. This is him passing the buck off to the Americans, who also don't really have a policy and will do nothing. This is all fine and good with me. The #1 concern for Canadians is not the environment. It's the economy. Harper killed the Liberals in the last election over this, and will do so again if it comes up a second time. Does it matter? Why is it that the current government lacks the imagination to impose as strict standards in a way that suits the Canadian economy better? Duh...because imposing unilateral carbon emission policies on the Canadian economy would put us at a huge disadvantage and would have about the same impact as a fart in a hurricane. Edited January 19, 2011 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 I don't think it is different but then again my party isn't the one using anti-Americanism at the moment. Because of Obama or Ignatieff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Because of Obama or Ignatieff Does it matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 I'm not the one pretending a part of a post doesn't exist to make my point. Yes, you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Does it matter? Depends which of the two Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Why is it that the current government lacks the imagination They deal in realities. to impose as strict standards in a way that suits the Canadian economy better? They do, and our dollar reflect international investors trust. As well stricter justice standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 19, 2011 Report Share Posted January 19, 2011 Soldiers in the streets, making fun of harpers religion, hidden adgenda, harper is hitler and a con majority is evil. I love how short the lib memory is. Attacks my ass, factual ads ,yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 As for the attack ads, on all sides they don't work. I heard a volley of folks say about how the last round defined Ignatieff so well but the polls haven't changed much since the last election. Ironically the thing that has swung opinion polls the most over wasn't any attack ad, it was the second prorogation of parliament. Harper went from high 30s to low to mid 30s and not much else changed. At most, attack ads during a writ causes people to stay home because they're disillusioned about the process. The only goal is that more of the other side stays home but there are no guarantees. They also come with the distinct possibility that your own base will resent the negativity and swing their votes. There are no good examples of attack ads winning elections but there are good examples of attack ads losing elections. Kim Campbell's ad attacking Chretien's bell's palsy was a major turning point. Soldiers in the streets from Martin and co. even though it never actually aired, was a gigantic turning point as well. Soldiers in the streets, making fun of harpers religion, hidden adgenda, harper is hitler and a con majority is evil. I love how short the lib memory is. Attacks my ass, factual ads ,yes. Yeah I guess I forgot all about it. Tool. They're not factual, you're just so partisan you can't see straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.