Does John Baird have an education?

[Michael Bluth]

However, I clearly described Baird's degree as a B.A. Which it is. And the post about which you are whining -- apparently for the second time -- is clearly not mine.

Any more words of wisdom on what constitutes disrespect, and the importance of posting with integrity?

I apologize for that, mistook you for charter. rights.

It was the first time. My concerns about comments such as 'volume and stupidity of neo-conservative hysteria' and 'Canadian Republicans' are valid.

What exactly did you mean by 'volume and stupidity'?

[Michael Bluth]

Wonder if you will get an apology. It isn't the first mistake he has made. He once tried to say the CCF was made up of disaffected Liberals.

Yet again another unsupported misrepresentation.

For someone who slanderously complained about perceived 'stalking', until the moderators had to step in and correct your behaviour, your fascination with my posts is quite ironic. Especially given the fact that you "don't read" my posts.

[Kitchener]

I apologize for that, mistook you for charter. rights.

Accepted, gladly.

What exactly did you mean by 'volume and stupidity'?

All you had to do was ask.

What I meant was that Gore has been the target of an astonishing amount of astonishingly stupid neo-con smears over the years -- many of them (e.g., invented the internet, Love Story) repeated for years after they had been comprehensively debunked. Suzuki has not been subjected to anything like that amount or stupidity/dishonesty of commentary. And it is only on this front, presumably, that they can be compared -- since surely nobody could have meant to suggest that a career politician and a zoology professor with over 150 scientific papers published have comparable expertise on environmental matters. (To think otherwise would have been to impose a very uncharitable interpretation indeed -- as if someone would say something that silly!) But the disappointing willingness of some posters on this thread to embarrass themselves by making such comparisons, or, for example, alluding to Suzuki merely as an entertainer, leads me to wonder whether we aren't seeing the beginning of a leveling of the field between Gore and Suzuki, as far as silly partisan attacks.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Kitchener

[Michael Bluth]

What I meant was that Gore has been the target of an astonishing amount of astonishingly stupid neo-con smears over the years -- many of them (e.g., invented the internet, Love Story) repeated for years after they had been comprehensively debunked. Suzuki has not been subjected to anything like that amount or stupidity/dishonesty of commentary. And it is only on this front, presumably, that they can be compared -- since surely nobody could have meant to suggest that a career politician and a zoology professor with over 150 scientific papers published have comparable expertise on environmental matters. (To think otherwise would have been to impose a very uncharitable interpretation indeed -- as if someone would say something that silly!)

You appear to be a reasonable person.

Terms like 'astonishingly stupid' really don't foster debate regardless of who they are directed at. Canadian Republicans is contemptuous and doesn't accurately describe anything.

There are significant differences between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Republicans in the U.S. The CPC is far to the left of the Republicans.

I am here to have intelligent and open debate. It can't always happen, but hey let's try.

No insults, no baiting, no trolling. Not everyone will play by those rules. Some will just try and start fights.

But the more open-minded, fair and honest posters we have here, of *all* political persuasions, the better.

If I had US citizenship I would lean to the Democrats. Gore ran a terrible presidential race in 2000. Why he decided to run away from the Clinton legacy I'll never know. I think the coming Presidential election will be the most exciting since 1992. Both parties should have solid nominees.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Kitchener]

"Canadian Republicans" is a perfectly sensible way of referring to Canadians who resemble or imitate Republicans; it's hard to fathom why you would say this "doesn't describe anything", but I suppose you could try arguing such a case cogently if you thought it important to make this claim reasonable.

I didn't say anything about the Conservative Party of Canada. Upbraiding someone (repeatedly) for something s/he didn't say is not a manifestation of honest, intelligent, open-minded discussion.

So, while I agree with the spirit of your remarks, the person to whom I would recommend them in the first instance is you. I do hope we can have productive discussions.

[Argus]

Wrong example to prove your point.

O'Connor should have been a great Minister of Defence by your yardstick, but....

There's no evidence O'Connor was NOT a good minister. However, he had the misfortune to run afoul of a very arrogant, albeit competent CDS who the press considers a hero. Hillier could not abide the thought of taking orders from a former subordinate and sabotaged O'Connor at every opportunity. No one much doubts this.

Where O'Connor perhaps failed as a minister was in the cut and thrust of verbal argument in the House and before the press. That, unfortunately, in today's political world, is often more important than actual competence in ones ministry. So he was replaced by McKay for the same reason Baird took over the environment. Baird might not be the best and most knowledgeable about environmental issues, but he's more than capable of firing back at the opposition whenever he's attacked.

[Argus]

Baird appears neither to understand his position, or the subject matter he has a responsibility for.

I too, like the suggestion that he be presented with the opportunity to go head to head with Dr. Suzuki

Suzuki would be creamed. Why? Because the job of a government mnister is not so narrowly focused as you appear to believe. You want Baird to basically do what Suzuki wants. But Suzuki has already expressed his belief that economics don't matter. No one would ever elect a government which believed that, and no government would ever appoint a minister who didn't have a wary eye on economics.

Much of the Left seem to like to curl their lip at the thought of "money" interfering in what they want to do. That's because they fail to understand that the economy of a nation is the life blood of a nation. Rich nations with strong economies get to afford to do all sorts of nifty things - like put in environmental regulations, for example - even while their people are healthy, well-fed and well sheltered. Poor nations with economies in the sewer can't afford health care, education or public welfare, can't afford to worry about environmental controls, and their people have short lifespans.

But all you'll get from the Left with that sort of talk is contempt. Don't bother them with the details! That's not important! Saving the world is what's important! Even if they don't quite know how or from what.

So what would Suzuki have to say? "Forget the economy! Close down all the oil production and automotive plants!"

And Baird would snicker and chuckle at what an idiot Suzuki was.

[Michael Bluth]

"Canadian Republicans" is a perfectly sensible way of referring to Canadians who resemble or imitate Republicans; it's hard to fathom why you would say this "doesn't describe anything", but I suppose you could try arguing such a case cogently if you thought it important to make this claim reasonable.

Pedantic posturing.

Insults reported.

In the hands of the mods now.

[Kitchener]

Pedantic posturing.

Insults reported.

In the hands of the mods now.

Do you mean you've reported your own insults???

Or are you under the impression that merely using the expression "Canadian Republicans" is an insult to someone on this forum?

It's quite baffling.

[Michael Bluth]

Or are you under the impression that merely using the expression "Canadian Republicans" is an insult to someone on this forum?

It's not factual. It is open to extremely hostile interpretation and dosen't foster honest debate. It could be easily construed as an insult.

To quote you:

"Canadian Republicans" is a perfectly sensible way of referring to Canadians who resemble or imitate Republicans

You aren't here for reasonable and fair debate.

It's in the hands of the mods.

[charter.rights]

It's not factual. It is open to extremely hostile interpretation and dosen't foster honest debate. It could be easily construed as an insult.

To quote you:

You aren't here for reasonable and fair debate.

It's in the hands of the mods.

Typical "cut and run" tactics of the poorly organized Reform/Conservatives/Republican envies.

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal for a place in Bush's good book.

As far as using money and the economy as an excuse not to do anything about the environment, well it is just another lame tactic to stall. There is no real value in the economy. It is an ephemeral construct designed to fool those without it that those with it have power and control. But when it really boils down, a working man's labour is worth 10 times what a lazy, pencil pusher is worth. The fact that somehow we have got it all wrong isn't a surprising since men in your circles still think women are there to serve them, and that the poor are to be despised when in fact they are merely a symptom of the rich person's lack of real compassion. That isn't to say that poor people deserve a free ride, but neither do they deserve the contempt thrust at them by those who really don't work for a living. Usury is a legalized form of theft and if you examine the corporate structure that is all it is.

We really needn't worry about the environment since it will likely live long after we have wiped ourselves off the face of the earth with our smug consumption and callous disregard for the effect we have on it. Better you should kill your children before they are born than to let them suffocate in the stench of our wasteful and ignorant apathy. Certainly the economy runs the show today but that doesn't mean that it must be supported at all costs. Rather, it is a tool with which we can make environmental change a priority but pencil pushers are afraid of losing power. Unfortunately when there is no more energy to push pencils with, you'll come looking for food and we may well be desirous to let you starve.

[Michael Bluth]

Typical "cut and run" tactics of the poorly organized Reform/Conservatives/Republican envies.

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal for a place in Bush's good book.

So you agree that "Canadian Republicans" is a demeaning personal attack that has no place on the board?

[Kitchener]

So you agree that "Canadian Republicans" is a demeaning personal attack that has no place on the board?

Please just name the person you believe I've attacked. Or have the courtesy to stop making this absurd and unwarranted claim.

[bush_cheney2004]

..."Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal for a place in Bush's good book....

No, "Canadian Republicans" or "Republicanism" is reserved for Canadians seeking to deep six the monarchy...as in CCR:

http://www.canadian-republic.ca/home.html

Americans, their head-of-state, and "soals" [sic] have nothing to do with Canadian Republicans.

[capricorn]

Please just name the person you believe I've attacked.

Referring to "Canadian Republicans" is an oblique way of calling Conservative supporters pro-American in their views. It is personally offensive to conservative supporters. This oblique reference to "Canadian Republicans" is reinforced by charter's retort is his/her post.

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal (sic) for a place in Bush's good book."

As a conservative supporter, I find this camouflaged language very distasteful and it is not conducive to mature discussions.

[Kitchener]

Referring to "Canadian Republicans" is an oblique way of calling Conservative supporters pro-American in their views. It is personally offensive to conservative supporters. This oblique reference to "Canadian Republicans" is reinforced by charter's retort is his/her post.

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal (sic) for a place in Bush's good book."

As a conservative supporter, I find this camouflaged language very distasteful and it is not conducive to mature discussions.

Goodness. Are we all this free to construct so many leaps of interpretation in order to take offense? Obviously not all Conservative party supporters (I assume you use the capitalized form to denote the party) are pro-American; nor, for that matter, does emulating or admiring the Republican party entail being pro-American; nor is there the slightest reason to think that, e.g., supporters of the Family Action party or the Libertarian Party couldn't fit the description I gave. So why on earth would you draw the strange inference about the Conservative party? I've said absolutely nothing about the Conservative Party of Canada; this idea was entirely projected by Michael Bluth after the fact. In any case, I've explained my use of the term, which is clearly neither insulting, nor personal, nor camouflaged in any sense besides being a rather obvious metaphor for Canadians who admire or emulate the Republican party.

[Michael Bluth]

So why on earth would you draw the strange inference about the Conservative party? I've said absolutely nothing about the Conservative Party of Canada; this idea was entirely projected by Michael Bluth after the fact. In any case, I've explained my use of the term, which is clearly neither insulting, nor personal, nor camouflaged in any sense besides being a rather obvious metaphor for Canadians who admire or emulate the Republican party.

There are a number of other people who took objection to these term just as I did.

[charter.rights]

Goodness. Are we all this free to construct so many leaps of interpretation in order to take offense? Obviously not all Conservative party supporters (I assume you use the capitalized form to denote the party) are pro-American; nor, for that matter, does emulating or admiring the Republican party entail being pro-American; nor is there the slightest reason to think that, e.g., supporters of the Family Action party or the Libertarian Party couldn't fit the description I gave. So why on earth would you draw the strange inference about the Conservative party? I've said absolutely nothing about the Conservative Party of Canada; this idea was entirely projected by Michael Bluth after the fact. In any case, I've explained my use of the term, which is clearly neither insulting, nor personal, nor camouflaged in any sense besides being a rather obvious metaphor for Canadians who admire or emulate the Republican party.

Do you notice the the cons have managed to derail this thread quite a few posts back arguing over insignificant semantics?

Who cares if the term Canadian Republican dishevels some? That could only happen if they think they resemble the description and don't want to be found out.

The point is that Baird isn't capable of the ministerial position he was given. He would do better at the Ministry of Comedic Anger, IMO.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Who cares if the term Canadian Republican dishevels some? That could only happen if they think they resemble the description and don't want to be found out.

Indeed....who else but a "Canadian Republican" would have a signature quoting American uber conservative William F. Buckley Jr.?

[charter.rights]

Indeed....who else but a "Canadian Republican" would have a signature quoting American uber conservative William F. Buckley Jr.?

I am hardly a Canadian Republican. Choose another target, please.

[BubberMiley]

Referring to "Canadian Republicans" is an oblique way of calling Conservative supporters pro-American in their views. It is personally offensive to conservative supporters.

I'm quite offended by the blatant anti-Americanism of all the Conservative supporters here who consider it an insult to be compared to their American counterparts. What is so wrong with the American Republican Party that you would consider it a smear to be associated with them?

[bush_cheney2004]

I am hardly a Canadian Republican. Choose another target, please.

After you, Sir. Shall we move on to "Canadian Democrats" ?

[jbg]

Goodness. Are we all this free to construct so many leaps of interpretation in order to take offense? Obviously not all Conservative party supporters (I assume you use the capitalized form to denote the party) are pro-American; nor, for that matter, does emulating or admiring the Republican party entail being pro-American; nor is there the slightest reason to think that, e.g., supporters of the Family Action party or the Libertarian Party couldn't fit the description I gave.

I guess this is your "anti-American post of the night"? Why do you feel the need to act out your US hatred on this Board. Go visit the American consultate in Berlin, Ontario.

So why on earth would you draw the strange inference about the Conservative party? I've said absolutely nothing about the Conservative Party of Canada; this idea was entirely projected by Michael Bluth after the fact. In any case, I've explained my use of the term, which is clearly neither insulting, nor personal, nor camouflaged in any sense besides being a rather obvious metaphor for Canadians who admire or emulate the Republican party

And your opinion of the US Republican Party, not that it has anything to do with any Canadian party?

[capricorn]

So why on earth would you draw the strange inference about the Conservative party?

Good deflection.

In any case, I've explained my use of the term, which is clearly neither insulting, nor personal, nor camouflaged in any sense besides being a rather obvious metaphor for Canadians who admire or emulate the Republican party.

Canadian and American politics are completely separate. Your use of the term "Republican" is completely transparent any way you slice it.

[charter.rights]

After you, Sir. Shall we move on to "Canadian Democrats" ?

You're still missing. I'm not A Canadian Democrat either. Perhaps you could look towards Ethiopia or Sweden for a more benign target.