Bob Rae to end bid for Liberal leadership: CTV

[M.Dancer]

Fund raising shouldn't be much of a problem for the Liberal party in a very short time.

They have a new Quebec ad agency?

[Smallc]

They have a leader that seems to know how to fundraise

[jdobbin]

Ok, hate is a strong word. I don't hate it per se but I do dislike it. It is the Liberal Logo, this is where they get that Natural Governing Party bunk from imo. I prefer to have the union jack as part of our national flag. The old flag was much more inclusive of all our parts of Canada imo.

So you think that Harper should initiate a change to the old flag?

[Smallc]

So you think that Harper should initiate a change to the old flag?

No, of course not, the new flag should be blue.

[noahbody]

They have a leader that seems to know how to fundraise

Maybe he'll agree to get rid of the $1.95 per vote per year contribution.

[jdobbin]

Man, if they can't figure out how to run a simple fundraising campaign with such a strong appeal and the amount of free publicity the media has given them, how long will it take them to come up with a plan for the economy?

I imagine that Ignatieff who didn't have a problem paying for his leadership campaign will be a much more able fundraiser.

Wonder if that will mean that Harper will reduce donor limits even further as I've heard in some quarters.

[jdobbin]

Maybe he'll agree to get rid of the $1.95 per vote per year contribution.

Certainly. And then lower the limit anyone can spend in a year as well for party operations.

[Mr.Canada]

So you think that Harper should initiate a change to the old flag?

I would like that but, it'll never happen. I prefer the Red Ensign as Canada's National Flag as it was pre 1964 when it was replaced with our current flag. Our current flag is so sterile and weak. Our old flag had some backbone and meant something. The Maple Leaf stands for weakness and socialism.

I want to roll back everything to 1964. So not just the flag but everything that went along with it. I want to erase all the damage that PET did to destroy our country.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

I want to roll back everything to 1964. So not just the flag but everything that went along with it.

That means residential schools and schools for blacks only?

[Mr.Canada]

That means residential schools and schools for blacks only?

We never had segregated schools in Canada afaik.

[jdobbin]

We never had segregated schools in Canada afaik.

Afraid we did.

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/English/exhi...y/community.htm

The proclamation of the Ontario Common Schools Act in 1851 was interpreted in many ways. It led to the creation not only of separate Catholic schools but also segregated Black schools, particularly west of Toronto.

Black parents fought against this through writing petitions demanding the inclusion of their children or by holding protest meetings.

The last school closed in 1965.

So if you want things back to 1964, I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

http://dalnews.dal.ca/2008/12/01/schoolhouse.html

the Canadian Encyclopedia notes Ontario’s last segregated school closed in 1965

[Mr.Canada]

Afraid we did.

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/English/exhi...y/community.htm

The last school closed in 1965.

So if you want things back to 1964, I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

http://dalnews.dal.ca/2008/12/01/schoolhouse.html

Learn something new everyday. To answer your question, no. No segregation unless self imposed and self funded.

Geez man I cannot say even one thing without someone pointing to some obscure passage, trying to trip me up on some technicality.

I guess I should have said the spirit of our old ways.

[jdobbin]

Learn something new everyday. To answer your question, no. No segregation unless self imposed and self funded.

As you can see, black families begged not to be segregated back when it first started. A sad moment in our history.

Geez man I cannot say even one thing without someone pointing to some obscure passage, trying to trip me up on some technicality.

When people remember the fondness for the old days, they have to remember things like forcing black families to be segregated.

I guess I should have said the spirit of our old ways.

The good old days weren't always good for all people.

[blueblood]

If he wants an election, he will put them back in.

Maybe he can put in abortion or death penalty stuff in an economic statement.

Is that the Liberal toaster talking again?

Did you not learn anything from 2 election losses, Canadians can't stand Liberal toaster hidden agenda comments. Oh well, that's another tory election in the bag.

[Shakeyhands]

Maybe he'll agree to get rid of the $1.95 per vote per year contribution.

Why? I want my $1.95 to go to the party I voted for.

[jdobbin]

Is that the Liberal toaster talking again?

Actually, I was listening to you say that Harper would provoke an election. That would do it. If he wants a guaranteed election, he will pull something like that.

Did you not learn anything from 2 election losses, Canadians can't stand Liberal toaster hidden agenda comments. Oh well, that's another tory election in the bag.

Did you not learn anything from two minorities? People don't like the games Harper plays and you are saying that it is a winning formula for him to win a majority.

So, is he going to provoke an election on non-budgetary areas by calling them confidence motions or is he going to do something partisanly stupid such as re-inserting clauses in this budget that he already took out once? Take your pick. At the moment, I think Ignatieff is prepared to support solid engagement on the economy. You seem to think that this is the time for Harper to call an election himself or to act like as horse's ass again.

Edited December 10, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

Actually, I was listening to you say that Harper would provoke an election. That would do it. If he wants a guaranteed election, he will pull something like that.

Did you not learn anything from two minorities? People don't like the games Harper plays and you are saying that it is a winning formula for him to win a majority.

So, is he going to provoke an election on non-budgetary areas by calling them confidence motions or is he going to do something partisanly stupid such as re-inserting clauses in this budget that he already took out once? Take your pick. At the moment, I think Ignatieff is prepared to support solid engagement on the economy. You seem to think that this is the time for Harper to call an election himself or to act like as horse's ass again.

We all know Harper is going to provoke an election. Nobody in Canadian politics is stupid enough to run on unpopular items such as abortion and execution, oh wait, Dion ran on a carbon tax and fear mongering, fat lot of good it did him. Trying to spread fear like that is what put the Liberals in the opposition chair. More people like games than fear mongering. It's a far better formula than saying Harper is going to put soldiers in the streets with guns.

Harper will act like a horse's ass and accuse the opposition of being uncooperative and selfish. It will be a massive PR battle, and it looks like the tories will win it. I think the time is ripe for an election with so much strife in the country. Harper will get his majority, but will be turfed because he will have become toxic.

[White Doors]

So, Harper was right to want to go in Iraq? Maybe he will bring that up in an election with Ignatieff.

There is being right and there is being politically wise.

You will be able to discern the difference with time and wisdom.

[White Doors]

What on the Job training, I am sure the Maratimes would prefer someone who was from Maine then someone from Alberta, or Yukon someone from Alaska as to someone from Nova Scotia. These regions have more in common then the ones with in Canada. Come on dont be silly we are not that different.

Ohhh this is the Obama arguement we all know how well that worked for McCain right(again my question mark does not work right now.)

Obviously you do not live in the Maritimes...

[madmax]

I have no patience for on-the-job-training when it comes to PM.

I have no patience for Harper either.

[jdobbin]

More people like games than fear mongering. It's a far better formula than saying Harper is going to put soldiers in the streets with guns.

Or accusations of support for pedophiles or terrorists as we have seen from the other side?

Harper will act like a horse's ass and accuse the opposition of being uncooperative and selfish. It will be a massive PR battle, and it looks like the tories will win it. I think the time is ripe for an election with so much strife in the country. Harper will get his majority, but will be turfed because he will have become toxic.

Even when the Opposition let him get his political agenda, he makes the accusation.

Harper's window to get an election with Dion at the helm is pretty much closed. His desire to call an election while sitting high in the polls is uncertain. While he would love to be defeated, he has to weigh out whether the Governor General would send him back to re-work a bill as is her right or whether to ask the Opposition to have a crack at government.

Ignatieff is unlikely to accept the coalition as it now stands but he is unlikely to back down from selfish legislation either. Not all PR is ad campaigns. Ignatieff need only propose amendments that seem rational and the government will be at pains to explain why they have a take it or leave it attitude.

Moreover, the Governor General might not accept the government attaching confidence over all bills not related to economics so soon after an election. If the government is defeated on one, she can send Harper back to the House to re-work things.

In your mind, the only option the Governor General has is an election. It isn't. She has the power to tell Harper to get back to work and stop playing games.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

She also has the power to take away his authority to govern. Which is what WILL happen if Harper continues on his previous path. The reality is that in Canada a majority or minority government is determined by the number of seats in the House of Commons occupied by like minded partisans. The vote of the citizens has NO control over this, never has. The "like minded" representatives are determined by their own designs in Ottawa.

[jdobbin]

There is being right and there is being politically wise.

You will be able to discern the difference with time and wisdom.

Think I can already. Harper was not right when he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Chretien was right to say that the U.N. inspectors should have been left alone to do their jobs.

I supported Bush and the U.N.'s push to get inspectors back and the hemming in of Saddam's regime but like a lot of people, I was concerned about how Iraq would be following a war. I actually believed Dick Cheney's after the first Gulf War about what the problems would be of going into Iraq. Too bad Cheney himself didn't follow his own advice.

[Argus]

I hope you're right because right now the Cons are looking up in Iggy past to attack him, when the government gets back to business. Iggy is going to prove he's out for the good of the country and NOT another Harper.

Uh huh. I have not seen a Liberal leader yet who would put the country's best interests ahead of his own.

[Argus]

My preference would have been an expedited vote using new technology but the last convention rebuffed against except the expensive delegate convention. I don't think the economics worked then and then they don't work now.

Given your party couldn't even master a camcorder I don't see how you guys could put together a rush-rush vote using "new technology".