jdobbin Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 In an interview with Le Devoir on January 14, 2009, Michael Ignatieff said that Bloquists are not traitors or enemies of Canada. So, if you believe they are traitors or enemies of Canada, you believe they should be arrested, tried and imprisoned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 WTF dobbin? I post two Ignatieff quotes, call them doublespeak, and from this you formulate a conclusion of my opinion of the Bloc. Unlike Ignatieff, I have only one opinion of the Bloc and it is unprintable. Unlike Ignatieff, my opinion of the Bloc is the same whether I'm in Quebec or outside Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 WTF dobbin? I post two Ignatieff quotes, call them doublespeak, and from this you formulate a conclusion of my opinion of the Bloc. Unlike Ignatieff, I have only one opinion of the Bloc and it is unprintable. Unlike Ignatieff, my opinion of the Bloc is the same whether I'm in Quebec or outside Quebec. Tell that to Harper who calls them separatists in English and sovereignists in French. As for your unprintable, it sound like traitor to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Tell that to Harper who calls them separatists in English and sovereignists in French.As for your unprintable, it sound like traitor to me. Two mouths! One whispers traitor - and in soft and soothing French he whispers "you sexy independent woman you" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Tell that to Harper who calls them separatists in English and sovereignists in French. Harper's comments came through a national address, not one interview inside Quebec and another outside Quebec. In Harper's national address, everyone heard the same thing at the same time, inside Quebec and outside Quebec. Ignatieff had two different messages to two different audiences and on two different occasions. Trying to downplay Ignatieff's doublespeak by raising Harper's plain talk gets you nowhere with me. As for your unprintable, it sound like traitor to me. Who am I to place boundaries on your fertile imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Harper's comments came through a national address, not one interview inside Quebec and another outside Quebec. Baloney. He did it again last night at a meeting. He also did it in his general address as the media reported. In Harper's national address, everyone heard the same thing at the same time, inside Quebec and outside Quebec. Ignatieff had two different messages to two different audiences and on two different occasions. I'm afraid that not. Where did you get that information? Trying to downplay Ignatieff's doublespeak by raising Harper's plain talk gets you nowhere with me. Trying to tell me that there was not too versions of Harper's speech gets no where with me. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...s-outburst.aspx And Harper’s reference to the separatists in English, and les souverainistes, as they have long styled themselves, in French, did not pass unnoticed either. What you have said is a lie. Who am I to place boundaries on your fertile imagination. You are a liar or misinformed. Take your pick. Harper switches words when it suits him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 What you have said is a lie.--- You are a liar or misinformed. Take your pick. Tsk, tsk. You dobbin, who chastises posters for personal attacks, should heed your own message. It's amusing to see the extremes you reach to defend the Liberal party. All this to distract from Ignatieff doublespeak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Tsk, tsk. You dobbin, who chastises posters for personal attacks, should heed your own message.It's amusing to see the extremes you reach to defend the Liberal party. All this to distract from Ignatieff doublespeak. Tsk, tsk. In the national speech Harper used different words for Quebec and the rest of Canada. It isn't a personal attack if it is true. So which is it? Misinformed or lie? Are you denying it? Edited March 14, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Tsk, tsk. In the national speech Harper used different words for Quebec and the rest of Canada. It isn't a personal attack if it is true. So which is it? Misinformed or lie? You seem to forget that there are English speaking Canadians in Quebec and there are French speaking Canadians in the rest of Canada. Therefore, how could he be using different words for Quebec and the rest of Canada. ALL Canadians heard the same message regardless of which group they belong to or where they reside whether inside or outside Quebec. So which is it? Are you misinformed or are you lying? "I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up."This is just an extraordinary statement. One, it validates everything the Conservatives have said about the coalition: that it did, indeed, put the Liberals in bed with the separatists. And two, as a Conservative spokesman took about a millisecond to point out, if he was so opposed to doing a deal with “people who want to split the country up,” why did he sign that letter to the Governor General, expressing his support for the coalition and urging her to put it in charge of the country? If it was right then, why is not right now? And if it is not right, why is it not? After all, weren’t we told over and over at the time that the Bloc were not “enemies of Canada“, but the duly elected representatives of the people of Quebec? Ignatieff’s instincts on the coalition were, and are, sound. He may even sincerely believe what he is saying. But he didn’t act on those beliefs when it counted. And the Conservatives are going to make him wear it. Especially after this. http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/12/he-said-that/ In January, in Quebec, Ignatieff said the Bloc are not enemies of Canada or traitors. In March, outside Quebec, Ignatieff says it is not right to to make a deal with people who want to split the country up. Pretty simple to grasp really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) You seem to forget that there are English speaking Canadians in Quebec and there are French speaking Canadians in the rest of Canada. Therefore, how could he be using different words for Quebec and the rest of Canada. ALL Canadians heard the same message regardless of which group they belong to or where they reside whether inside or outside Quebec.So which is it? Are you misinformed or are you lying? Talk about doublespeak. Prior to the speech, Harper used sovereignist in both languages. He changed the word for the French and English broadcasts. You are a liar that it was the same message. It wasn't and the Montreal Gazette among others correctly reported there was two messages. Liar. A simple truth. Edited March 14, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) WTF dobbin? I post two Ignatieff quotes, call them doublespeak, and from this you formulate a conclusion of my opinion of the Bloc. Unlike Ignatieff, I have only one opinion of the Bloc and it is unprintable. Unlike Ignatieff, my opinion of the Bloc is the same whether I'm in Quebec or outside Quebec.Capricorn, that was a good catch for a quote.---- As to Dobbin, you must understand Liberal tactics. To Liberals, the best defence is a good offence. Instead of discussing Ignatieff's flakey flip-flop opinions, Dobbin now wants to discuss your opinions of the Bloc. Talk about doublespeak. Prior to the speech, Harper used sovereignist in both languages. He changed the word for the French and English broadcasts.Doublespeak?Ignatieff signed a document supporting a coalition government including the Bloc. Here's Andrew Coyne's response. PS. I'm adding this to the Ignatieff: The Flake thread. Edited March 14, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 As to Dobbin, you must understand Liberal tactics. To Liberals, the best defence is a good offence. Instead of discussing Ignatieff's flakey flip-flop opinions, Dobbin now wants to discuss your opinions of the Bloc. So am I lying that Harper changes his tune for Quebec versus the rest of the Canada or are you deflecting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 So am I lying that Harper changes his tune for Quebec versus the rest of the Canada or are you deflecting?We're not discussing Harper, we're discussing Ignatieff. And I suspect that Ignatieff, like most flakes, really believed it when he signed in December and then when he said what he said in March. Ignatieff's not being dishonest, he's just being a flake.Anyway, this thread is fun because it just has quotes. Let's take the debate elsewhere, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 We're not discussing Harper, we're discussing Ignatieff. And I suspect that Ignatieff, like most flakes, really believed it when he signed in December and then when he said what he said in March. Ignatieff's not being dishonest, he's just being a flake. And I am saying this is deflecting from the fact that Harper says one thing versus another. Anyway, this thread is fun because it just has quotes. Let's take the debate elsewhere, no? And my link shows Harper changed an extremely important word for the most hyperpartisan reasons to inflame his supporters. It has backfired as Gazette has shown in terms of where Tory support has gone. If you are going to show quotes to support your political view, expect to have them fired right back at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Danny Williams, 58, Prime Minister of Newfoundland & Labrador: "We are a seafaring people who have for centuries lived from the sea; people risking their lives every day to provide for their families and contribute to this province. And yet we will never, ever be able to accept the loss of precious lives to the sea.” CBC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 (edited) Bernard Landry, ancien premier ministre du Québec, commente la nomination de Michael Sabia à la tête de la Caisse: «Ma réaction est très négative, pas par le lieu de sa naissance, d'aucune espèce de façon, mais par sa culture économique. Sa culture est fédérale... elle est "canadian", ce qui n'est pas un défaut en soi, mais qui ne qualifie pas pour diriger la plus grande institution financière de la nation québécoise».... «Il a contribué au transfert de la propriété et des activités de BCE vers Toronto. Le grand patron de la Caisse doit tenir compte des intérêts de l'économie québécoise... Il faut avoir fait preuve qu'on en est un défenseur. Et M. Sabia, en tout respect, a fait le contraire» Canoe Edited March 16, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) Ben Bernanke, 55, Chairman of the US Fed, explains bank bail-outs: "Let me give you an analogy, if I might," Bernanke said. "If you have a neighbor, who smokes in bed. And he's a risk to everybody. If suppose he sets fire to his house, and you might say to yourself, you know, 'I'm not gonna call the fire department. Let his house burn down. It's fine with me.' But then, of course, but what if your house is made of wood? And it's right next door to his house? What if the whole town is made of wood? Well, I think we'd all agree that the right thing to do is put out that fire first, and then say, 'What punishment is appropriate? How should we change the fire code? What needs to be done to make sure this doesn't happen in the future? How can we fire proof our houses?' That's where we are now. We have a fire going on." CBS Edited March 16, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 (edited) Ben Bernanke, 55, Chairman of the US Fed, explains bank bail-outs:CBS What's funny about this is that August has been one of the slowest to catch on to this (I give Ben the benefit of the doubt - there is no way he should have been giving this analogy back in early or even late 2008). None of this analogy is news today - most of us have known that the credit crisis started in August, 2007. Most of us have known it was pretty dire in early to mid 2008. Now it's 2009 - welcome to the bandwagon, August. At this rate you should become your own "Dr. Doom" just in time for the recovery. Edited March 16, 2009 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Ben Bernanke, 55, Chairman of the US Fed, explains bank bail-outs:CBS Bad analogy.....unless he means the Great Chicago Fire. Let 'em burn..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 None of this analogy is news today - most of us have known that the credit crisis stared in August, 2007. Most of us have known it was pretty dire in early to mid 2008.I didn't offer this analogy, Bernanke did - and frankly, it seems odd that Bernanke compares banking to an externality. If true, where would that logic lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Bad analogy.....unless he means the Great Chicago Fire.Let 'em burn..... That's where Ben is absolutely right - you let them all fail and we would have the Great Depression II. Thankfully, he has learned that lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 That's where Ben is absolutely right - you let them all fail and we would have the Great Depression II. Thankfully, he has learned that lesson. He hasn't learned anything but after-the-fact. Convincing American taxpayers to drink the Flavor-Aid yet again is not good in the long term. Houses and apartment buildings burn to the ground on a routine basis. ..then we rebuild them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 He hasn't learned anything but after-the-fact. Convincing American taxpayers to drink the Flavor-Aid yet again is not good in the long term. Houses and apartment buildings burn to the ground on a routine basis. ..then we rebuild them. Of course he has learned it after the fact. The Great Depression was over before Ben was born. At least he has learned something, that's better than most people, obviously..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Of course he has learned it after the fact. The Great Depression was over before Ben was born. At least he has learned something, that's better than most people, obviously..... That's swell...glad all this "learning" is going on with my dime. I'm sure he has "learned" that present stop-gap measures will only prolong the inevitable "Darwinian flush" that is so badly needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) George Bush Jnr, 62, gives his first first speech as an ex-US president in Calgary: "It is the risk takers, not the government, that is going to pull us out of this recession. My message to policy makers is don't substitute government for the market place. Don't become protectionist. I am a free trader to the core.'' Link Edited March 18, 2009 by August1991 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.