Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.

[Oleg Bach]

You sure admire this guy. Personally I have little faith in professional professors and acedemics in general - apparently you are one of them. Do us a favour - IF you are going to continue to make a study of Ignateiff - and promote him - do your duty and report back what is negative about the man also...Being an Ignateiff follower as it seem you to be - please do some writing on the man - the warts and the roses!

Please stay balanced and no idol worshipping if you can help it...so go for it - be the Iggy journalist and as I said do not be bias - that would confuse people.

[jbg]

BUT... even you have to admit that Reform, no matter how many good ideas it carried, also had quite a burden of 'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots', and the Conservative Party still provides a welcoming home for anti-abortion, pro-US, and excessively militarist sentiments.

You lump people that are "pro-US" "'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots'" as well as those with "excessively militarist sentiments"?

Huh?

[Canadian Blue]

So get all your 'we we's' out now before it becomes law. Do you realize how sill that is, when he was writing a paper for the American people?

About as silly as people who state that Harper is a separatist for writing a paper telling Albertan's not to separate but to find constitutional and legal venues to become more independent of a hostile federal government.

Anyone who has read Harpers history before he gave up his classical liberal principles will know that he was supportive of a federation where the provinces were granted more control over their areas of jurisdiction and the federal government would butt out.

By the way it's not comparable to the separatism that is called for by Gilles Duceppe and Baker. Those two just feel entitled to other peoples money and that's about it.

Do you think Canadians care now? We like Obama and are looking to America as a welcome partner during this economic crisis.

Yep, we should only have cordial relations with our neighbour if a Democrat's in charge. Ironically enough John McCain would have likely been better in terms of our relationship because he wasn't a protectionist and even stated that Canada and America both benefit from free trade.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

You lump people that are "pro-US" "'holocaust deniers, racists and bigots'" as well as those with "excessively militarist sentiments"?

Huh?

Apparently if you ever showed sympathy with the United States, had a "Support the Troops" magnet, or questioned the ethics of abortion, you are no different from David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

[g_bambino]

You mean, the opposition dragged her down. After all they were the ones who started this whole mess since they can only survive off the tit of the taxpayer.

As I said no such thing, that can hardly be what I meant. The details are mere politics, and not the jist of my criticism. No party or leader behaved in a particularly admirable fashion throughout the whole fiasco, but at least those in HM's Loyal Opposition knew the rules and played by them, unlike Harper, who appeared to believe he could just make up constitutional precedent as he went along. Regardless of what the opposition did, Harper had absolutely no excuse to present himself to the Canadian populace as though he were an American-style president, elected by the people for the people, no matter how much he dreams of being in such a position. Had he admitted to himself that he was the leader of a minority government, holding his office at the whim of the elected commons, and backed down from the outset, he would never have found himself sitting on a sofa in Rideau Hall while the Governor General decided his fate. Thank god, though, that she smacked him with a dose of reality: ultimately, he's the servant, not the boss.

_{[ed. to remove errant word]}

Edited March 9, 2009 by g_bambino

[guyser]

With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die. I'll be quite frank I find pro-choicers to be far more despicable, simply because they don't even engage in a debate. Their main goal is to use the state to shutup people who disagree with them.

Is it fair then to describe the anti-abortionists as a group who care not one whit for the health of a mother, nor care for a rapist impregnating a woman and that they care not for the child after birth?

I certainly hope not , much like your blanket statement.

[scorpio]

With the abortion debate, I hold to the maxim that those who are neutral should be sent to the hottest part of hell once they die.

And what about the Almighty? Ever heard of spontaneous abortion?

Edited March 9, 2009 by scorpio

[Progressive Tory]

You sure admire this guy. Personally I have little faith in professional professors and acedemics in general - apparently you are one of them. Do us a favour - IF you are going to continue to make a study of Ignateiff - and promote him - do your duty and report back what is negative about the man also...Being an Ignateiff follower as it seem you to be - please do some writing on the man - the warts and the roses!

Positives:

1. He's not a professor but an author and journalist who was invited to teach.

2. I've always admired journalists who go into dangerous places so that we can get the real news.

3. He has a Harvard PhD

4. He's not Stephen Harper.

Negatives:

1. He liked Ronald Reagan

2. He didn't like the coalition.

3. He's a Liberal.

4. He's too tall.

[Canadian Blue]

Had he admitted to himself that he was the leader of a minority government, holding his office at the whim of the elected commons, and backed down from the outset, he would never have found himself sitting on a sofa in Rideau Hall while the Governor General decided his fate.

He did back down on the party funding. However the coalition was still going ahead.

I certainly hope not , much like your blanket statement.

I was talking about the pro-choice lobby in particular.

And what about the Almighty? Ever heard of spontaneous abortion?

Yes I have, however I've also heard of people succumbing to diseases, injury, and in many cases by the hand of other human beings. Just because someone is dead it doesn't mean they no longer have any human qualities, to argue so would be foolish. Besides one does not need to believe in an almighty to be opposed to abortion, have you ever heard of Nat Hentoff?

Positives:

1. He's not a professor but an author and journalist who was invited to teach.

2. I've always admired journalists who go into dangerous places so that we can get the real news.

3. He has a Harvard PhD

4. He's not Stephen Harper.

I hear that PJ O'Rourke and Geraldo Riviera faced a great deal of danger in the Persian Gulf, perhaps they should run for office. As for having a PhD, I recall Woodrow Wilson was considered the most educated President, yet he was a war monger, racist, shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights, jailed anti-war protestors, and centralized the US government. Michael Ignatieff is somewhat similar to Harper, in that they're both extremely boring, come off as unemotional, and aren't all that populist.

Negatives:

1. He liked Ronald Reagan

2. He didn't like the coalition.

3. He's a Liberal.

4. He's too tall.

Yeah, I disliked Reagan too, what with his defeating of double digit inflation and malaise. But I like your point about him being tall, the only people you can trust with government power are midget NDP wrestlers who hate Ronald Reagan and like the coalition.

[guyser]

I was talking about the pro-choice lobby in particular.

There is pro choice and anti abortionists. Is there another group(s) I am unaware of?

[Canadian Blue]

There is pro choice and anti abortionists. Is there another group(s) I am unaware of?

Wouldn't it be more accurate too say that their are only people who favour legal abortion and those who oppose it. You're then using langauge to demonize the otherside, after all nobody wants to be considered "anti-choice" or "anti-life." That would be suicide by semantics.

But the other group are students unions who boycott pro-life groups. Not to mention the fact that Joyce Arthur a prominent pro-choice spokesperson has attacked civil libertarians for arguing that pro-life groups should be allowed to organize on campuses.

Finally, here is a link to a speech I gave at the University of Victoria in 2005, in support of a vote by the student council to not give an anti-choice group club status. This explains a human-rights rationale for the argument that anti-choice groups should not have the right to host events or displays at a university at all, at least not with the support or permission of the administration or student council. The viewpoints promoted by anti-choice groups are anti-democratic, anti-human rights, sexist, and discriminatory. Their events and propaganda amount to hate propaganda against women and minorities (such as in GAP displays), and can even constitute harassment of women. Most universities and student councils/unions have policies against discrimination and harassment, so they have no obligation to extend freedom of speech, let alone funding and logistical support, to anti-choice groups.

So yes, I'd say it's a safe bet that many pro-choice groups want to restrict freedom of speech in Canada when it comes to abortion in the guise of "human rights." Needless to say I've been of the opinion that freedom of speech is a human right, but it's become less apparent in Canada. If we were to follow her rationale opposition to abortion would be illegal because it would be hate propaganda.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[g_bambino]

He did back down on the party funding. However the coalition was still going ahead.

If the confidence the house has vested in him is on shaky ground, then Harper must either stabilise it or loose it. Period. It is not up to the Crown to shore up his position, nor is our parliamentary system of responsible government there for him to disassemble in his favour.

[Canadian Blue]

If the confidence the house has vested in him is on shaky ground, then Harper must either stabilise it or loose it. Period. It is not up to the Crown to shore up his position, nor is our parliamentary system of responsible government there for him to disassemble in his favour.

Actually, it was in this case. Most people noted that the Governor General would have the power to allow an election, prorogue Parliament, or allow a confidence vote. That is the system and that's how it works.

But it became somewhat obvious early on that this coalition really wasn't about altruism as much as many on the left liked to believe. However I think the coalition should have been allowed to go through, it would have self-destructed within a couple of months. Nobody is so foolish as to believe that the promises of conniving politicians is worth much in the House of Commons.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[guyser]

Wouldn't it be more accurate too say that their are only people who favour legal abortion and those who oppose it. You're then using langauge to demonize the otherside, after all nobody wants to be considered "anti-choice" or "anti-life." That would be suicide by semantics.

I am not 'using' languqage to demonize anyone. Simply calling what they are called. If it serves you better, then yes , lets use your monikers.

So, how does that change the way you demonize those who would not want to agree?

I am not, and neither are you, in the camps far fringes. However, I support the choice for a woman. So, am I one of those who stridently tries to shout you down? No, but your blanket statement said as much.

[Canadian Blue]

I am not 'using' languqage to demonize anyone. Simply calling what they are called. If it serves you better, then yes , lets use your monikers.

So, how does that change the way you demonize those who would not want to agree?

I am not, and neither are you, in the camps far fringes. However, I support the choice for a woman. So, am I one of those who stridently tries to shout you down? No, but your blanket statement said as much.

Well you certainly don't speak up against those who attempt to shut debate down which makes you just as culpable. I've provided a cite and you have yet to show any concern that the pro-choice lobby now seems to believe that the right to oppose abortion should be considered hate propaganda.

If you dislike the blanket statement, then perhaps you would note the quote I gave you and oppose that position which is seeking to criminalize freedom of speech in the name of human rights.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Progressive Tory]

About as silly as people who state that Harper is a separatist for writing a paper telling Albertan's not to separate but to find constitutional and legal venues to become more independent of a hostile federal government.

I don't believe Harper is a separatist anymore than I believe Baker is a separatist. They both were and are just fighting to get what's best for their province. Both brought up the Quebec situation as a perceived threat to get what they want(ed).

As to McCain, I liked him but when he brought Sarah Palin on board, he shot himself in the foot. As to Obama, all polls indicate that Canadians love him - something like 82% I think.

Accusing Ignatieff of loving Americans with the word 'we', is just plain ridiculous. It might have meant something when Bush was in power, but not anymore. Canadians are now saying 'we'.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't believe Harper is a separatist anymore than I believe Baker is a separatist. They both were and are just fighting to get what's best for their province. Both brought up the Quebec situation as a perceived threat to get what they want(ed).

As to McCain, I liked him but when he brought Sarah Palin on board, he shot himself in the foot. As to Obama, all polls indicate that Canadians love him - something like 82% I think.

Accusing Ignatieff of loving Americans with the word 'we', is just plain ridiculous. It might have meant something when Bush was in power, but not anymore. Canadians are now saying 'we'.

Yes, you're a 100% correct, Obama is reaching Putinesque levels of popularity amongst Canadian's. But that's largely because most Canadian's never bothered to actually look at Obama's policies. The reality is that Bill Richardson would have been the best candidate to have in the White House for Canada, but I suppose charisma is a good substitute for substance.

By the way, Ignatieff did make the comment about "we American's" when George W Bush was actually in power. At the time he was also supportive of the war in Iraq and torture.

Actually I've got a question, since you think George W Bush deserves a spot in hell for Iraq and you routinely attack the right for "killing Muslim children" in Iraq, would you then have any criticism of Michael Ignatieff for taking the same position?

In other words, does Michael Ignatieff enjoy seeing Muslim children killed in Iraq due to his support of the invasion?

[Progressive Tory]

Michael Ignatieff is somewhat similar to Harper, in that they're both extremely boring, come off as unemotional, and aren't all that populist.

My comments were tongue in cheek. However, you can call Ignatieff whatever you like, but never say he's anything like Harper, who is cold, petty and a snivelling coward.

Ignatieff may bore you, but thanks to conservative criticism, I started reading his books, and he is anything but boring. I can see why they won so many awards and such high praise. We should be proud of our accomplished Canadians but because of partisan politics, some would rather he be from another country, because God forbid we should lay claim to one of the most accomplished and brightest scholars of the day.

Why aspire to that when we can settle for bohunk and mathematical wizards who think 4 + 5 = 30?

[Progressive Tory]

But the other group are students unions who boycott pro-life groups.

So I assume these pro-life groups want an immediate end to all wars?

[Progressive Tory]

If the confidence the house has vested in him is on shaky ground, then Harper must either stabilise it or loose it. Period. It is not up to the Crown to shore up his position, nor is our parliamentary system of responsible government there for him to disassemble in his favour.

He only backed down on public funding because he knew it was a mistake to end it in the first place. Flaherty was quoted in our newspaper right after the Cons' fiscal update, challenging the Opposition with "bring it on", saying they wouldn't back down. The Opposition "brought it" and guess who peed in his pants?

[Canadian Blue]

My comments were tongue in cheek. However, you can call Ignatieff whatever you like, but never say he's anything like Harper, who is cold, petty and a snivelling coward.

Don't worry, I won'd ad hominem attack Ignatieff like you did Harper. But listen I understand, you really hate Stephen Harper. I hear that kind of hatred come from the left all the time, it's normal.

Ignatieff may bore you, but thanks to conservative criticism, I started reading his books, and he is anything but boring. I can see why they won so many awards and such high praise. We should be proud of our accomplished Canadians but because of partisan politics, some would rather he be from another country, because God forbid we should lay claim to one of the most accomplished and brightest scholars of the day.

Most scholars are typically boring, which is a good thing. By the way it's hard not to play partisan politics with the opposition leader, since, you know, he's apparently in politics. That is unless you think it's abhorrent that a politician would be criticized.

Why aspire to that when we can settle for bohunk and mathematical wizards who think 4 + 5 = 30?

Considering that Ignatieff is in favour of the deficit, but I won't try to hit you to much on your little cult built around a politician.

So I assume these pro-life groups want an immediate end to all wars?

Of course not, otherwise all of the Jews would have been exterminated in Europe.

He only backed down on public funding because he knew it was a mistake to end it in the first place. Flaherty was quoted in our newspaper right after the Cons' fiscal update, challenging the Opposition with "bring it on", saying they wouldn't back down. The Opposition "brought it" and guess who peed in his pants?

Actually, Flahrety stated that it would be in the next election that the CPC would abolish said funding. But then again it's really not a surprise that the parties of left require taxpayer dollars to survive.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[capricorn]

As to Obama, all polls indicate that Canadians love him - something like 82% I think.

For the time being, Obama is more popular here than in the US.

Obama enjoys strong personal popularity, with 56% who have a favorable opinion of the president -- most notably among fellow Democrats, with 93 percent who view the president positively. More than half of political independents feel the same (52%), compared to only 14% of Republicans.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20090309/NEWS01/90309010

But that's OK. It usually takes a while for us to catch up to Americans in how we feel about their politicians.

Accusing Ignatieff of loving Americans with the word 'we', is just plain ridiculous. It might have meant something when Bush was in power, but not anymore. Canadians are now saying 'we'.

So you're saying we should discount events relevant to Ignatieff that occurred during Dubya's presidency. I wonder, would you extend your reasoning to Harper related events?

[Canadian Blue]

Progressive Tory, you never answered my question about Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq and torture? Do you think Ignatieff deserves a spot in hell along with George W Bush for supporting that venture?

I know that sometimes cults don't like to criticize the leader, but criticism is healthy once in a while.

[Progressive Tory]

So you're saying we should discount events relevant to Ignatieff that occurred during Dubya's presidency. I wonder, would you extend your reasoning to Harper related events?

I'm talking about the desperation of planning an attack on the word 'we'. It's irrelevant.

[Canadian Blue]

So you're saying we should discount events relevant to Ignatieff that occurred during Dubya's presidency. I wonder, would you extend your reasoning to Harper related events?

Dude, that's like asking Tom Cruise if he's critical of Ron Hubbard's dishonourable military service.

It's obvious that Progressive Tory's entire world is defined like this:

Stephen Harper = Evil king of darkness mixed with Adolf Hitler

Michael Ignatieff = Reincarnation of Jesus Christ and Buddha

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue