bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 ...Question ---- IF Ignatieff was PM - would he remove our former peace keepers turned killing machines from Afghanistan??? Answer please. No....Mr. Ignatieff is so super smart from traveling all over the world and selling dogfood on TV and writing books that he would figure out how to sell the mission to you all over again. Maybe borrow a phrase for Nixon/Kissinger...."Peace with honor". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 No....Mr. Ignatieff is so super smart from traveling all over the world and selling dogfood on TV and writing books that he would figure out how to sell the mission to you all over again.Maybe borrow a phrase for Nixon/Kissinger...."Peace with honor". Ignatieff has been in Afghanistan and believes that we are on the wrong track there (as do many people not driven by military contracts). Obama is committed to changing foreign policy, which includes a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, and increased presence in Afghanistan, to actually go after Al Quaida. He may very well ask for input from Igantieff, and the Liberal leader has promised to support Obama; not closing the door to an extended mission if the mission is finally the right one. Shared intelligence and diplomacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I don't even understand what you just said. We can understand this liberal leaders english and Canada will find out just how foolish the carbon tax is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Ignatieff has been in Afghanistan and believes that we are on the wrong track there (as do many people not driven by military contracts). Obama is committed to changing foreign policy, which includes a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, and increased presence in Afghanistan, to actually go after Al Quaida. He may very well ask for input from Igantieff, and the Liberal leader has promised to support Obama; not closing the door to an extended mission if the mission is finally the right one. Shared intelligence and diplomacy. Ya he is widing the war to include Pakistan, wonder why the liberals in the US aren't squwaking about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Ignatieff has been in Afghanistan and believes that we are on the wrong track there (as do many people not driven by military contracts). Obama is committed to changing foreign policy, which includes a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, and increased presence in Afghanistan, to actually go after Al Quaida. He may very well ask for input from Igantieff, and the Liberal leader has promised to support Obama; not closing the door to an extended mission if the mission is finally the right one. Shared intelligence and diplomacy. What's the point in going after and killing the peasant level Al Quaidi? You could kill a million of them to no avail... you might have to go after their controlers and no one is mentioning or even speculating who they are. Surging into Afghanistan by the Americans will be very useful to the new recruits --- who will be black and poor and believing that the military will give them a "free education" - but the price might be your life. Obama is going to look real loyal to his fellow Afro-Americans once they start counting bodies...but that won't bother him - he's was never poor and he was never black so it does not matter...besides it might be a great way to get the black youth out of gangs and doing some legit killing for pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What's the point in going after and killing the peasant level Al Quaidi? You could kill a million of them to no avail... you might have to go after their controlers and no one is mentioning or even speculating who they are. Surging into Afghanistan by the Americans will be very useful to the new recruits --- who will be black and poor and believing that the military will give them a "free education" - but the price might be your life. Obama is going to look real loyal to his fellow Afro-Americans once they start counting bodies...but that won't bother him - he's was never poor and he was never black so it does not matter...besides it might be a great way to get the black youth out of gangs and doing some legit killing for pay. There goes another kitten... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 We can understand this liberal leaders english and Canada will find out just how foolish the carbon tax is. The carbon tax is non-issue and Harper's 'cap and trade' was going to be just as costly. He told us so. "Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning Canadians to expect higher energy bills as new technologies such as the underground storage of carbon dioxide develop and come online." Of course, that was before the election. If Obama sticks to his environmental plans, Harper will have to do something to clean up his act, literally. Otherwise, Alberta is going to be in serious trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Obama is hinting that the oil sands are much to dirty and should be buried and put back....can Alberta get by with out the sands? I would say so - so --- I guess Alberta will just have to kick that company out of town - looks like you go the okay from Washington....booot! Obama has spoken - submit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Harper's support from the Chritian Right is based on making abortion a crime, amoung other things. He keeps promising them that it will happen when he gets a majority.It's a no-brainer what a Harper Majority would look like, so I'm glad it's now out of his reach. Of course he does have a majority in one sense. The majority of Canadians can't stand him. "he keeps promising" like you keep making sh*t up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Harper's support from the Chritian Right is based on making abortion a crime, amoung other things. He keeps promising them that it will happen when he gets a majority.It's a no-brainer what a Harper Majority would look like, so I'm glad it's now out of his reach. Of course he does have a majority in one sense. The majority of Canadians can't stand him. Abortion is legal! Abortion is barbaric and backward. Abortion is the right to kill part of yourself...other than that it's not a crime - just a bit of a crimminal mindset that is exceptable because humans are nasty...I would love to see a cat or a chimp...preform and abortion on another cat or chimp - and we could all watch - would we find that repulsive? Imagine a cat abortion provider coming up behind a pregnant cat and start dragging half formed kittens out and tossing them aside - It would be a nasty sight - humans are the only ones that abort or spay and neuter other creatures...wonder why the elephants are not aborting whales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Obama is hinting that the oil sands are much to dirty and should be buried and put back....can Alberta get by with out the sands? I would say so - so --- I guess Alberta will just have to kick that company out of town - looks like you go the okay from Washington....booot! Obama has spoken - submit! And don't forget that Obama has sought the advice of Al Gore and we know how Mr. Gore feels about Harper and the tar Sands. This is going to be a tough one for him and Alberta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Obama is committed to changing foreign policy, which includes a plan for withdrawal from Iraq, and increased presence in Afghanistan, to actually go after Al Quaida. He may very well ask for input from Igantieff, and the Liberal leader has promised to support Obama; not closing the door to an extended mission if the mission is finally the right one. Shared intelligence and diplomacy. You mean Ignatieff is poised to change his mind...again...on a major policy matter? Uh oh! I don't think this will go down well with the anti-military majority in La Belle Province. Of particular concern to the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the result showing skepticism runs highest in Quebec, where 76 per cent said the sacrifice is unacceptable. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home While in Quebec, MI took a firm position on the 2011 pullout. He stressed that he will make it clear to Obama that the Canadian troops will pull out of Afghanistan in 2011, but said he will offer his help to work for a global strategy. http://www.canada.com/Ignatieff+talk+about...8911/story.html Sometime after his comments in Quebec on February 17 and his meeting with Obama on the 19 of February, (a whole 2 days) he changed his tune on Afghanistan. His reversal of position and floundering on major issues is not going unnoticed. There is no doubt that Mr. Ignatieff has united his party and given Canadians the sense there is a prospective government in waiting. But leaders know the way and show the way, even when the going gets tough. Recent history suggests that's right about the time Mr. Ignatieff gets going-- shifting his position on issues such as the Iraq war and a carbon tax when it became politically expedient to do so.Mr. Harper has not exactly been a model of consistency in recent months, but he has proven over the long haul that on issues from the taxing of income trusts to the Quebec-as-a-nation motion, he has made tough decisions, faced up to his critics and argued them down. Michael Ignatieff may be a "smart set intellectual," as The New York Times says, but does he have what it takes to make the tough decisions? http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/st...html?id=1313226 In how to act for political expediency, Michael Ignatieff is the poster boy. In that respect, he's in a class of his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 His reversal of position and floundering on major issues is not going unnoticed. "Neither the Liberal camp nor the CLC would confirm the exchange..." Heresay. Besides Canadians agreed with Ignatieff, and that's what counts. If you want flipflop, you'll have to look to Harper. 'No deficit. Won't tax income trusts. Won't call an early election.' He's the master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 "Neither the Liberal camp nor the CLC would confirm the exchange..." Heresay. The exchange which was not confirmed is whether MI actually said he would not support another Harper budget. His track record of saying what his audience wants to hear lends credibility to what is reported. In addition, it does not negate the analysis of MI as political opportunist. Besides Canadians agreed with Ignatieff, and that's what counts. What's your point? All the poll shows is that Canadians agreed that Ignatieff was right to support the budget because they supported the budget. We should do cartwheels over this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 What's your point? All the poll shows is that Canadians agreed that Ignatieff was right to support the budget because they supported the budget. We should do cartwheels over this? Nobody was doing cartwheels. "The latest poll from Ipsos Reid, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National, found that 58 per cent of those surveyed say they think the budget is "neither good, nor bad." Just one-quarter of respondents believe the budget is good and 18 per cent said it is bad. And only 23 per cent — fewer than one in four Canadians — believe Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's fourth budget will help them personally. "It's probably the least-supported budget of all the ones he's delivered and at a time of crisis when he was supposed to make people feel better, I think it's benign," said Ipsos Reid senior vice-president John Wright. "For most people, it's made them feel indifferent." They supported an end to the drama, not the budget itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 The pressure Harper feels to be a political moderate will come from Obama and Ignatieff. But the ultra-right (Neo-Con) wing of the Conservative party won't allow such blasphemy. Remember this : Canada currently has a PM who is intrinsically more right-wing in his social, foreign and economic policies than is the current US president. It's a rare situation indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Remember this : Canada currently has a PM who is intrinsically more right-wing in his social, foreign and economic policies than is the current US president. It's a rare situation indeed. He's one a dying breed. Most world leaders who, like Harper, had aligned their policies with George W. Bush; are either gone or on their way out. He's alone, surrounded by intellect, not ideology. He'll never keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 I guess the topic will be started at some point today. The visit will be brief and probably won't accomplish much, but what will the relationship between Harper and Obama be? Besides short.You can downplay Obama's popularity if you want, but public opinion is important, and Canadians love him, as do I. Again, not blindly, but he represents hope after eight years of terror. Are Harper and Obama going to be buddies? "Obama is charismatic and charming, whereas Harper has made a career on his lack of personality. Obama reaches across party lines, where Harper had to cause a constitutional crisis before deciding to play nice with the opposition." They may have a few things in common, but fundamentally the two are the exact opposites. A recent poll included the question "who would you rather have meet Obama?" 51% said Ignatieff and only 31% Harper. As one poster puts it: "The fact that Obama waited for Ignatieff's signal about the fate of the government is an embarrassment for Harper." Another story today is Ignatieff and the fact that his visit has been cut to 10 minutes. Was this a political trick of Harper's? Who knows, but we now know that Ignatieff has close personal friends in Obama's administration. Ignatieff expects longer meeting with Obama "The meeting was initially supposed to be 30 minutes. Ignatieff, who has close friends in Obama's administration, hinted it may have been the Prime Minister's Office that influenced the time of the meeting." This will go well for Ignatieff next election, with so many Canadians in love with the new president, and expect Obama and Iggy to have a mutual respect and close relationship. It's all about perception. You have been clearly too caught up in this crazy Obamamania phenomenon.According to you,the only thing that matters in politics is popularity....and nothing else.George W.Bush was popular at one time as well,and the fact that he ended his term as an unpopular leader does not automatically make him the worst President ever.Time will tell. A common misconception is that Harper and Obama are polar opposites and that Harper was a carbon copy of Bush.You should do a bit more research on that subject.Here is an article you may want to read.http://www.dangardner.ca/Coloct0308.html Why does style trump substance these days in so many aspects of our lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) You have been clearly too caught up in this crazy Obamamania phenomenon. For every pro-Harper or Pro-Bush article there are a dozen opposite opinions. I don't really care. What Obama represents is hope after eight years of evil stupidity. Bush was never as popular as you think. He stole the first election and probably the second, and his Patriot Act took away American's civil rights to oppose anything he did. At a time of crisis people want someone to tell them it's going to be OK. Obama represents that whether you want to believe it or not. The Republicans are now barely breathing and the Canadian Conservatives are on life support, until the next election when we can pull the plug. I've never liked Harper but only started hating him in December, when he put national unity on the line to save his job, and told more lies than Pinocchio. That is not the job of the Prime Minister. Edited February 28, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 ...What Obama represents is hope after eight years of evil stupidity. Bush was never as popular as you think. He stole the first election and probably the second, and his Patriot Act took away American's civil rights to oppose anything he did. Nonsense....President Bush had the highest job approval ratings of any US president in 2001 at 92%. US presidents do not exist to give you hope in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Nonsense....President Bush had the highest job approval ratings of any US president in 2001 at 92%. US presidents do not exist to give you hope in Canada. Not according to the U.S. who believe they are there to be the gatekeepers of the entire world. The only time GW's approval rating was that high was after 9/11 when everyone was hepped up on patriotism and would have followed Donald Duck if he wrapped himself in an American flag. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Not according to the U.S. who believe they are there to be the gatekeepers of the entire world. Well it sure as hell isn't Canada.....based on your own pining for hope and salvation from south of the border. It is pathetic that your domestic political dynamic is so dependent on such things. They said Harper = Bush.......Harper still won. The only time GW's approval rating was that high was after 9/11 when everyone was hepped up on patriotism and would have followed Donald Duck if he wrapped himself in an American flag. Thank you for admitting you were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 A common misconception is that Harper and Obama are polar opposites and that Harper was a carbon copy of Bush.You should do a bit more research on that subject.Here is an article you may want to read.http://www.dangardner.ca/Coloct0308.html Thanks for posting that link ironstone. Gardner's commentary is particularly interesting in that he admits he is no fan of either Bush or Harper. As regular readers of this space will know, I am a fan of neither the president nor the prime minister. It would be so much easier to drown these kittens if I could drop them both in one sack.But I cannot. The facts do not permit it. The equation of Stephen Harper and George W. Bush is nothing more than a political caricature. http://www.dangardner.ca/Coloct0308.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 For every pro-Harper or Pro-Bush article there are a dozen opposite opinions. I don't really care.What Obama represents is hope after eight years of evil stupidity. Bush was never as popular as you think. He stole the first election and probably the second, and his Patriot Act took away American's civil rights to oppose anything he did. At a time of crisis people want someone to tell them it's going to be OK. Obama represents that whether you want to believe it or not. The Republicans are now barely breathing and the Canadian Conservatives are on life support, until the next election when we can pull the plug. I've never liked Harper but only started hating him in December, when he put national unity on the line to save his job, and told more lies than Pinocchio. That is not the job of the Prime Minister. Obama represents hope you say?He certainly campaigned on that premise....and little else in my opinion.Since the time that he was sworn in he could hardly be said to be promoting hope.How about plain old fearmongering?http://www.dangardner.ca/Coljan2309.html You can't expect to be taken seriously here while using phrases like"eight years of evil stupidity".Bush may be many things to many people,but he was in no way,shape or form evil.The word evil can describe someone like Hitler(National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) or Joseph Stalin(Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics).Don't use a powerful word like evil to describe former President Bush,you are only embarassing yourself.He likely won't be ranked among the best Presidents but he did do some positive things during his eight years.There were no successful acts of terrorism on American soil after 9/11.The U.S. economy was relatively ok for six of eight years. Under Bush,the U.S. contributed more funds to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa than any other President did.He should be given credit for that at least. 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.