Federal government will run a $34-billion deficit in 2009?

[jdobbin]

Because a few days ago I was rather interested in a discussion I was having with madmax and I wanted to see where it went from there. Instead I find that you've derailed the thread and baited some posters into one of your anal citation arguments. Typical jdobbin.

If someone makes a claim, I'd like to see if it is their own opinion or something that has been presented in another area. Or do you accept things willingly from anonymous posters here? I wanted to know if the statement was a fact.

You just can't avoid threads I post it without attacking, can you? Put me on ignore if you can't stand it but for pete's sake, stop complaining about it.

You derail threads with your personalizing at every turn. That's you. Not me. I asked for a citation because I had not seen that information anywhere else. You think that is somehow unreasonable.

Don't be stupid. You asked for a citation on a passing and cynical remark made by capricorn. Either you were disputing it to be true or you're just asking for citation to annoy and inconvenience people.

Don't be stupid. I wanted to know who had indicated this precedence when I had never heard mentioned anywhere else but here. Have you seen it mentioned somewhere else? I was prepared to accept the information but my own observations on the matter is that MPs often stepped off the floor on a whipped vote so that they would not have to vote against their own party.

MPs have voted against their party before on whipped votes. I have not heard anything to indicate they all faced reprimands for it. If they didn't, it would constitute again a partially whipped vote.

capricorn, as far as I could tell, was saying a partially whipped vote excluding a whole province of MP's is unusual and as far as he knew unprecedented.

I think I heard the words "first time" and wondered if that was their opinion or if someone had actually researched it.

It's YOUR responsibility to disprove that on your own. You're showing either an inability or unwillingness to perform even simple critical thinking if you can't see why. Over the last few months I've come to expect that from you.

It is not my responsibility to research a claim that someone makes in these threads. Grow up. Stop personalizing and give me a break about the critical thinking argument.

I have to be willing to prove someone is stating an opinion over a fact? It is what I have come come to expect from you.

Stop your incessant whining and if you can't stand my posts, just use the ignore button.

Edited February 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

If someone makes a claim, I'd like to see if it is their own opinion or something that has been presented in another area. Or do you accept things willingly from anonymous posters here? I wanted to know if the statement was a fact.

I don't accept claims from anonymous posters. In fact, I ask for citations sometimes myself. Where most people differ from you is that we don't ask for citations for things we're already fairly certain aren't true. The INTELLIGENT thing to do in this instance would be to call BS and recall an instance which would refute the claim. What do you think is easier? Bringing up an event from memory and providing citation for it, or asking capricorn to look for a citation you and I both know he'll have a heck of a hard time finding and that he probably wasn't 100% serious about in the first place?

I wanted to know who had indicated this precedence when I had never heard mentioned anywhere else but here. Have you seen it mentioned somewhere else? I was prepared to accept the information but my own observations on the matter is that MPs often stepped off the floor on a whipped vote so that they would not have to vote against their own party.

There we go, now we're talking. Now we know you've observed it happening before. You know what? I'll also take that statement at face value. I find it extremely unlikely that over the last 100 years or so there hasn't been at least a few unpunished protests at the whipped vote. This is discussion. Try this more. This is what the boards are about. Citation is only worth the argument you present with it. Do you see what I'm getting at?

When you do nothing but quote someone and say, "Citation please" it's just as rude as me coming right out and saying you're full of BS. The difference between us is that I have the courtesy to explain my position.

You just can't avoid threads I post it without attacking, can you? Put me on ignore if you can't stand it but for pete's sake, stop complaining about it.

I'll make the effort to stop attacking your posts when you make the effort to actually think out and write down your arguments rather than playing the dual role of citation police and partisan news broadcaster. Don't ask for citations unless you're going to provide an alternative viewpoint or clarify what the point of contention is.

If all you're going to do is spam news links that promote your partisan interests then I'm going to call you on it. We are all very capable of visiting the Toronto Star, CBC, Calgary Herald etc. We don't take their political news terribly seriously either because they have VERY filtered viewpoints. I'm very anti-Liberals these days, you've probably noticed. I'm smart enough, however, not to quote Alberta newspapers when I'm criticizing them because you'd be right not to take what they say seriously.

You derail threads with your personalizing at every turn. That's you. Not me. I asked for a citation because I had not seen that information anywhere else. You think that is somehow unreasonable.

There's very little personalization in my language. My observation was you ARE unreasonably anal when it comes to citation and that spamming news links with clichéd and partisan one-liner commentary is pointless and foolish. Besides, this thread has already been derailed.

It is not my responsibility to research a claim that someone makes in these threads. Grow up. Stop personalizing and give me a break about the critical thinking argument.

It's your responsibility to use your brain. Stop acting like a victim because you bring it on yourself.

"Oh gee umm...I'm pretty sure he's ummm...totally wrong...so umm...I should probably ask him for citation rather than...um....mustering the gargantuan effort to lift my fingers on to the keyboard and....ummm...explain why I think he's wrong."

Edited February 5, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

I don't accept claims from anonymous posters. In fact, I ask for citations sometimes myself. Where most people differ from you is that we don't ask for citations for things we're already fairly certain aren't true. The INTELLIGENT thing to do in this instance would be to call BS and recall an instance which would refute the claim. What do you think is easier? Bringing up an event from memory and providing citation for it, or asking capricorn to look for a citation you and I both know he'll have a heck of a hard time finding and that he probably wasn't 100% serious about in the first place?

I have no indication of her not being serious in the statement. You seem think the statement was not serious but then you make a few assumptions. You assume it is rude to ask for a citation.

Asking for a citation is not impolite. I could find nothing written anywhere on the subject. I was asking for verification and would have accepted it had been provided.

There we go, now we're talking. Now we know you've observed it happening before. You know what? I'll also take that statement at face value. I find it extremely unlikely that over the last 100 years or so there hasn't been at least a few unpunished protests at the whipped vote. This is discussion. Try this more. This is what the boards are about. Citation is only worth the argument you present with it. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I had already argued that in this thread. I was told that it was a technicality compared to Ignatieff.

When you do nothing but quote someone and say, "Citation please" it's just as rude as me coming right out and saying you're full of BS. The difference between us is that I have the courtesy to explain my position.

I don't think it is impolite to ask for a citation. I hear it often enough. If I am listing employment numbers for 1993 and someone asks me for a citation, I have no problem giving it. I have no way of assessing the veracity of an anonymous poster.

You are assuming its rude whereas it isn't. I haven't resorted to namecalling or anything of the sort.

You make too many assumptions. You assume rudeness to a simple question.

I'll make the effort to stop attacking your posts when you make the effort to actually think out and write down your arguments rather than playing the dual role of citation police and partisan news broadcaster. Don't ask for citations unless you're going to provide an alternative viewpoint or clarify what the point of contention is.

Once again, it is not up to me to provide an alternative cite. I didn't make the statement. I had no idea if the statement was accurate or not and could find no evidence that it was or I wouldn't have asked.

The rules state that if you are going to state something as fact to provide a cite or back up your statement.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...E=01&HID=17

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

I provide a link to something if I am commenting on. It is part of the rules.

If all you're going to do is spam news links that promote your partisan interests then I'm going to call you on it. We are all very capable of visiting the Toronto Star, CBC, Calgary Herald etc. We don't take their political news terribly seriously either because they have VERY filtered viewpoints. I'm very anti-Liberals these days, you've probably noticed. I'm smart enough, however, not to quote Alberta newspapers when I'm criticizing them because you'd be right not to take what they say seriously.

If I state something as fact, I am sure it will not be long before I hear people asking for a source and they'd be right.

I know you hate all the news companies but that it is a separate issue and does not constitute spam since it is part of a discussion thread.

There's very little personalization in my language. My observation was you ARE unreasonably anal when it comes to citation and that spamming news links with clichéd and partisan one-liner commentary is pointless and foolish. Besides, this thread has already been derailed.

If you refer to a specific poster, you are personalizing. If you have an issue with something that is said, address the issue. Asking for citation is not insulting. You assume it is even when it isn't.

And please don't act holier than thou on partisanship. You are not the one anal on criticizing others and never confront your own unwavering belief in your own politics.

It's your responsibility to use your brain. Stop acting like a victim because you bring it on yourself.

It's your responsibility to control your personalizing. Seen it happen often enough to know who is on a walk to expulsion.

"Oh gee umm...I'm pretty sure he's ummm...totally wrong...so umm...I should probably ask him for citation rather than...um....mustering the gargantuan effort to lift my fingers on to the keyboard and....ummm...explain why I think he's wrong."

I didn't assume anything. I asked for a link to where the poster got their information.

It is not my responsibility to provide evidence for a statement of fact I didn't make. And I did look to see if was written somewhere out of my own curiosity.

Edited February 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

I have no indication of her not being serious in the statement.

I suppose the LOL emoticon I added to my quip didn't provide you a clue?

I had no idea if the statement was accurate or not and could find no evidence that it was or I wouldn't have asked.

Of course you wouldn't find anything because the Parliamentary rules don't provide for a partially whipped vote. That's why I linked to the glossary in the rules which defines the various types of votes. Being absent in order not to vote on a whipped vote was a tactic that evolved over time. But it is not recognized in the Parliamentary rules.

[jdobbin]

I suppose the LOL emoticon I added to my quip didn't provide you a clue?

I had no indication that you were not serious about the fact you stated. The emoticon appeared to be laughing at the fact that Ignatieff had allowed the MPs that vote.

Of course you wouldn't find anything because the Parliamentary rules don't provide for a partially whipped vote. That's why I linked to the glossary in the rules which defines the various types of votes. Being absent in order not to vote on a whipped vote was a tactic that evolved over time. But it is not recognized in the Parliamentary rules.

I asked for a cite to show it was the first time such a thing had happened. I could find nothing of the sort and believed you had a link to that effect that verified what you said. You seemed confident of that and generally I don't question statements from you because they are usually backed up. As you know, I don't ask for cites from you willy nilly.

I was well aware of the convention on whipped votes but also know that there have been times MPs have voted against their own bill and not been reprimanded, demoted and evicted for caucus.

[capricorn]

You seemed confident of that and generally I don't question statements from you because they are usually backed up. As you know, I don't ask for cites from you willy nilly.

Thanks dobbin, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Moonbox]

Asking for a citation is not impolite. I could find nothing written anywhere on the subject. I was asking for verification and would have accepted it had been provided.

I didn't assume anything. I said it appeared to be a passing remark, meaning it wasn't something that was thoroughly researched and cross-referenced. It's not rude to ask for a citation, but it's anal and inconsiderate to ask for one when you have a good idea what the person's saying is wrong already, which is what you indicated.

I don't think it is impolite to ask for a citation. I hear it often enough. If I am listing employment numbers for 1993 and someone asks me for a citation, I have no problem giving it. I have no way of assessing the veracity of an anonymous poster.

You're absolutely correct. If someone is spewing numbers all over the place then it's probably a good idea to ask. On the other hand, some things are difficult if not impossible to cite. Capricorn's statement, for example, is not going to be citeable. Why? Because unless it's been thoroughly researched since the founding of the Confederation all the way to today vote by vote, nobody is going to make that claim. It's easier to bring up a previous instance in which this has occured than it is to rule out it ever happened in the last 100 years.

Besides, the at the end of Capricorn's post might have also helped clarify that is wasn't exactly a shining example of academia.

Sometimes it's simply NOT WORTH THE EFFORT to accurately cite something. The purpose of this forum, when it comes down to it, is to discuss politics reasonably. We're not writing academic essays and few of us have the time to reference everything we say. It bogs the discussion down into nothing when a citation is required for even the smallest comments.

Let the little things slide. Ask for citations on the more contentious issues and give us the courtesy of just correcting us with a few words, or even provoke a debate by saying something along the lines of, "LoL, that's not right and here's why: ."

You are assuming its rude whereas it isn't. I haven't resorted to namecalling or anything of the sort.

Maybe rude wasn't the right word. Anal was. I'm not trying to attack you or your intelligence. I'm attacking how you nitpick and you try to muddy things up with technicalities.

The rules state that if you are going to state something as fact to provide a cite or back up your statement.

This is kind of what I'm talking about. I think the rules probably allow for context and intent when deciding whether something is presented as hard fact or just simple feeling, thought or rhetoric. You'd do well to notice the difference.

And please don't act holier than thou on partisanship. You are not the one anal on criticizing others and never confront your own unwavering belief in your own politics.

My politics are highly pragmatic, which how they should be for everyone. I have regularly acknowledged Harper's shortcomings. I believe some of the descriptions I've used for him have been, "Snake, Hypocrite, Lesser of Evils, Bible-Thumper," just to name a few. When I defend him, I do so by comparison to the alternatives. It was easier when Dion was leader. I'm finding it a lot more difficult now that he and Bob Rae are out of the picture. I'd be happy if we had a socially moderate leader with a fiscally conservative agenda. That's certainly not Harper. Maybe that's Ignatieff? I really don't know enough about him yet to say.

As far as your postings are concerned, I really don't see much balance to the perspective. It appears your posts are more of an extension to Liberal friendly media than anything else.

Anyways, you and I have definetly killed the thread by now. I've made it pretty clear what I think of a lot of your posting lately so i'll leave it at that.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

I didn't assume anything. I said it appeared to be a passing remark, meaning it wasn't something that was thoroughly researched and cross-referenced. It's not rude to ask for a citation, but it's anal and inconsiderate to ask for one when you have a good idea what the person's saying is wrong already, which is what you indicated.

I think I has said already I didn't know the answer definitely. And I don't ask for a citation from the person who made the statement as the poster will attest. I usually their statement but I wanted a source for the claim. You are the one thinking it is anal to ask at all but that would indicate some sort of repetitiveness.

You're absolutely correct. If someone is spewing numbers all over the place then it's probably a good idea to ask. On the other hand, some things are difficult if not impossible to cite. Capricorn's statement, for example, is not going to be citeable. Why? Because unless it's been thoroughly researched since the founding of the Confederation all the way to today vote by vote, nobody is going to make that claim. It's easier to bring up a previous instance in which this has occured than it is to rule out it ever happened in the last 100 years.

I had no idea it was going to impossible to cite. The confident statement made me think there was a source for the claim.

Besides, the at the end of Capricorn's post might have also helped clarify that is wasn't exactly a shining example of academia.

It wasn't entirely clear which I usually find with the poster.

Sometimes it's simply NOT WORTH THE EFFORT to accurately cite something. The purpose of this forum, when it comes down to it, is to discuss politics reasonably. We're not writing academic essays and few of us have the time to reference everything we say. It bogs the discussion down into nothing when a citation is required for even the smallest comments.

Let the little things slide. Ask for citations on the more contentious issues and give us the courtesy of just correcting us with a few words, or even provoke a debate by saying something along the lines of, "LoL, that's not right and here's why: ."

As I said, I never made a claim that it was right or not right. I asked the poster of they had something to support the statement.

Maybe rude wasn't the right word. Anal was. I'm not trying to attack you or your intelligence. I'm attacking how you nitpick and you try to muddy things up with technicalities.

People are attacking how the vote took place by saying it has never been done before. It isn't nitpicky to ask how so?

This is kind of what I'm talking about. I think the rules probably allow for context and intent when deciding whether something is presented as hard fact or just simple feeling, thought or rhetoric. You'd do well to notice the difference.

The poster gave no indication that this was an opinion.

My politics are highly pragmatic, which how they should be for everyone. I have regularly acknowledged Harper's shortcomings. I believe some of the descriptions I've used for him have been, "Snake, Hypocrite, Lesser of Evils, Bible-Thumper," just to name a few. When I defend him, I do so by comparison to the alternatives. It was easier when Dion was leader. I'm finding it a lot more difficult now that he and Bob Rae are out of the picture. I'd be happy if we had a socially moderate leader with a fiscally conservative agenda. That's certainly not Harper. Maybe that's Ignatieff? I really don't know enough about him yet to say.

Your statements are political even when criticizing Harper. You can even say they are partisan. It is what you can expect from a political forum.

As far as your postings are concerned, I really don't see much balance to the perspective. It appears your posts are more of an extension to Liberal friendly media than anything else.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I have been critical of Liberal policy, leadership and I was saying from 2006 till when Dion left than the Liberals would not win an election.

You obviously haven't read my posts on ending taxpayer support of the CBC.

Anyways, you and I have definetly killed the thread by now. I've made it pretty clear what I think of a lot of your posting lately so i'll leave it at that.

As I said, put me on ignore. It is an effective way to not have to deal with any of my posts.

[Topaz]

I found the link on the NDP member that was let go. I hope this link workshttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051017.wdesjarlais1017/BNStory/National/

[Topaz]

I found the link on the NDP member that was let go. I hope this link workshttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051017.wdesjarlais1017/BNStory/National/

Sorry, as you can see the link didn't work and I'm not sure why it didn't.

[capricorn]

Here it is Topaz.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

[Smallc]

Sorry, as you can see the link didn't work and I'm not sure why it didn't.

You have to put a space between your last word and the start of the address.

[madmax]

I found the link on the NDP member that was let go. I hope this link workshttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051017.wdesjarlais1017/BNStory/National/

5 people were interested in the running for the NDP nomination.

But NDP insiders insisted yesterday that Ms. Desjarlais' defeat had nothing to do with her June vote. Rather, Mr. Layton has maintained a policy of allowing all sitting MPs to be challenged for their nominations.

“In my opinion, that's a terrific loss for our party,” said NDP MP Peter Stoffer, yesterday, who praised Ms. Desjarlais' work over her eight years as an NDP MP.

Though the news came as a surprise, Mr. Stoffer said he continues to support the party's policy of wide-open nomination races.

Party spokesman Brad Lavigne said the five person nomination battle shows more people want to run for the NDP in the next election.

Again, that isn't "kicked out" but obviously the 2 or 3 term MP couldn't find the support to win a nomination battle, sometimes is an indicator that they won't have the support to win another election. But that is not always the case.

Clearly that 5 person nomination battle didn't result in a victory for the NDP, and they might have held the seat if Desjarlais had shown up with enough support to win the nomination.

Desjarlais was a sitting NDP MP until she choose to resign from the party and sit as an independent until the next federal election.

Obviously the she felt this was the best choice for her under the circumstances, rather then continue as an NDP MP until the next election.

What this diversion from the Federal Deficit has done is show me a riding I didn't follow. To discover that NDP ridings in Manitoba are like LPC and CPC ridings in Ontario where many nomination battles are contested, sometimes with as many as 8 candidates if the parties haven't secured the nomination in advance.

I also was unaware that Tina Keeper was an actress on North of 60 ..... until now.