Alta4ever Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Maybe, Maybe not Freedom of speech is an American concept http://www.heartlessandbrainless.com/2009/...an-concept.html Edited April 3, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Maybe, Maybe not. We can see that Tory bloggers are too lazy to read the whole book. They quote something to fit the context of what they are trying to get across and still can't determine how it relates to Ignatieff today or what the theme of his book was then. Edited April 1, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 We can see that Tory bloggers are too lazy to read the whole book. They quote something to fit the context of what they are trying to get across and still can't determine how it relates to Ignatieff today or what the theme of his book was then. What Ignatieff of today isn't the Ignatieff of yesterday, he changed as soon as he entered the liberal party, did he change who he is when he became leader. Or is it maybe you just didn't know how to deal with this tidbit so your tring to spin it away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 What Ignatieff of today isn't the Ignatieff of yesterday, he changed as soon as he entered the liberal party, did he change who he is when he became leader. Or is it maybe you just didn't know how to deal with this tidbit so your tring to spin it away? Actually, I am pointing out that you and this blogger have not read the book. Spin that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Iggy,like all Liberals strongly believes in free speech.....as long as the speech is completely in line with the left wing,Liberal,politically correct types. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Iggy,like all Liberals strongly believes in free speech.....as long as the speech is completely in line with the left wing,Liberal,politically correct types. It sure looks that way doesn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Iggy,like all Liberals strongly believes in free speech.....as long as the speech is completely in line with the left wing,Liberal,politically correct types. And Tories want to call a spade a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 What Ignatieff of today isn't the Ignatieff of yesterday, he changed as soon as he entered the liberal party, did he change who he is when he became leader. Or is it maybe you just didn't know how to deal with this tidbit so your tring to spin it away? what tidbit? what spin? it's the American bloggers assertion that Freedom of Speech is an American concept... so, of course, you title this/your thread around Ignatieff's belief - huh! the book is a collection of 11 essays from leading scholars... with an introduction written by Ignatieff. The premise of the book is that the U.S. has been a driving force in promoting global human rights but is also reluctant to commit to the international laws and conventions that protect them..... i.e. the "American Exceptionalism" which Ignatieff categorizes into 3 types: (1) exemptionalism (supporting treaties as long as Americans are exempt from them); (2) double standards (criticizing "others for not heeding the findings of international human rights bodies, but ignoring what these bodies say of the United States); and (3) legal isolationism (the tendency of American judges to ignore other jurisdictions). the American blogger appears to assert that Ignatieff is "being critical" of U.S. domestic policy and it's "failure" to adhere to the same global human rights standards that the U.S. has been a driving force in promoting. The first essay - from the first scholar revolves around the U.S. First Amendment..... so, of course, because Ignatieff chose to put that essay, from that scholar, as the first entry (of 11), the American blogger leaps to the conclusion that Ignatieff's first piece of "damning evidence" in his attempt to indict the American domestic record on human rights ... is using the U.S. First Amendment. The American blogger continues on in an attempt to label Canadians (fundamentally)... and Ignatieff in particular... as willing to sacrifice fundamental natural freedoms of self-expression in the name of jurisprudence aimed to subjugate racial animosity. so... of course, without a single direct quote attributed to Ignatieff we now have tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum yucking it up about Ignatieff's and Liberals free speech beliefs... jdobbin said it best! Actually, I am pointing out that you and this blogger have not read the book. Spin that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Maybe, Maybe not Don't know that....but he sure does believe in Americans: From "Living Fearlessly in a Fearless World" Ignatieff Commencement Address to Whitman College (USA), 2004: "There is only one thing we can do about this: live the way we are supposed to live, as our Constitution commands us to, with dignity and respect for all. Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises. We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic, the ones that talk about the equality of all people, the ones that tell us that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We need to live by this, at home and abroad, and it is just about the only thing we can do to face the hatred of those who want to destroy us. Our best defense is to stay true to who we are. Our best defense is to refuse to live in fear, of them, of ourselves, of anyone." "We are living a moment of truth in Iraq, a moment in which we have to look fair and square at disagreeable realities, in which we have to look at ourselves. The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison are a kind of mirror in which we have to look at ourselves and ask: what kind of people did this? How did this become possible? Could I have done a thing like this to those people?" "We do need to ask ourselves, as a society, as a free people, how we came to this pass. Those soldiers were acting in the name of America, and they disgraced its name. We have to ask who authorized them to do so. Who should take responsibility here? We need answers to these questions, and we need to take responsibility as citizens that we get answers, and that accountability is established, right up the chain of command if need be, so that we do not go here again as a country." "Some voices are calling on America to circle the wagons. Some are even saying that our enemies do worse, so we should respond in kind. The problem here is that this is America. This is a constitutional republic based on the rule of law and equal respect for all persons. We can’t pretend that we can bend the rules any which way. We made the rules for ourselves. We have to live by them." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Don't know that....but he sure does believe in Americans:From "Living Fearlessly in a Fearless World" Ignatieff Commencement Address to Whitman College (USA), 2004: "There is only one thing we can do about this: live the way we are supposed to live, as our Constitution commands us to, with dignity and respect for all. Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises. We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic, the ones that talk about the equality of all people, the ones that tell us that government is of the people, by the people and for the people. We need to live by this, at home and abroad, and it is just about the only thing we can do to face the hatred of those who want to destroy us. Our best defense is to stay true to who we are. Our best defense is to refuse to live in fear, of them, of ourselves, of anyone." "We are living a moment of truth in Iraq, a moment in which we have to look fair and square at disagreeable realities, in which we have to look at ourselves. The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison are a kind of mirror in which we have to look at ourselves and ask: what kind of people did this? How did this become possible? Could I have done a thing like this to those people?" "We do need to ask ourselves, as a society, as a free people, how we came to this pass. Those soldiers were acting in the name of America, and they disgraced its name. We have to ask who authorized them to do so. Who should take responsibility here? We need answers to these questions, and we need to take responsibility as citizens that we get answers, and that accountability is established, right up the chain of command if need be, so that we do not go here again as a country." "Some voices are calling on America to circle the wagons. Some are even saying that our enemies do worse, so we should respond in kind. The problem here is that this is America. This is a constitutional republic based on the rule of law and equal respect for all persons. We can’t pretend that we can bend the rules any which way. We made the rules for ourselves. We have to live by them." Funny how those on the board swear up and down he is Canadian, but look at all those "we americans" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Don't know that....but he sure does believe in Americans:Funny how those on the board swear up and down he is Canadian, but look at all those "we americans" guys, guys... why ya changing the subject? anywho - who better to counter your misdirection attempt than the darling of the right-wing Conservatory, one Mark Steyn... cause, you know... he da revered man - the go-to quotester for so many of the blogging Tories! My colleague Paul Wells, meanwhile, is much exercised by what Daffy Duck, in a livelier context, called "pronoun trouble" -- Ignatieff's habit of writing "we" and "our" when writing about American policy in American newspapers. I'm more sympathetic on this point. In a long and undistinguished career, I've written for publications in many lands and from early days I've always been very careful about pronouns. Then I discovered that for the previous six months some malicious Fleet Street sub-editor at the Daily Telegraph, in my more contemptuously hectoring surveys of the London scene, had been taking out every dismissive "you British" and replacing it with "we." More recently, I began to get a flurry of emails from Canadians sneering at me as a wannabe Yank along with even more emails from aggrieved Americans huffing at my impertinence at claiming to speak on behalf of their country. It turned out some jackanapes of a whippersnapper at my publisher's had appended his own subtitle to a forthcoming book of mine and announced it on Amazon, thereby saddling me with Ignatieff Pronoun Syndrome and doubtless irreparably damaging my prospects of a pre-retirement sinecure as lieutenant-governor of Nunavut. Having suffered the editing processes of the New York Times, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Ignatieff pronouns that so affronted Paul Wells hadn't been inserted by one of their many deputy associate assistant executive copy editors. But, even if they weren't, so what? If, like Ignatieff, you're living and working in America, writing about America for Americans, what's the big deal about the occasional expansive inclusive "we"? now come on back Alta4ever... it's your thread topic - and my last post - you're avoiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted April 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Your on ignore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) guys, guys... why ya changing the subject? Same subject.....different skin for Mr. Ignatieff. "Occasional expansive "we" ".....is being very generous...even for Walla Walla, Washington. Dion got more crap just for having a French mother for chrisakes. I'm sure the audience and media will embrace Mr. Bush's use of an expansive "we", "our", and "(US) Constitution" on his next speaking engagement in Canada. Edited April 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 guys, guys... why ya changing the subject? Same subject.....different skin for Mr. Ignatieff. I'm sure the audience and media will embrace Mr. Bush's use of an expansive "we", "our", and "(US) Constitution" on his next speaking engagement in Canada. same subject? From "free speech beliefs" to "pronoun usage"??? Wonder why no one wants to continue with the threads original premise... as for the Shrubs next speaking engagement... c'mon - how many times can he play Calgary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Iggy,like all Liberals strongly believes in free speech.....as long as the speech is completely in line with the left wing,Liberal,politically correct types. Please. If anything this BLOGGER makes Ignatieff look good. Ignatieff said most develloped countries are intelligent/reasonable enough to understand where to draw the line on freedom of speech. Namely, when someone publicly starts inciting baseless, ignorant and sometimes violent racial/gay/religious hate, there's absolutely no purpose in preserving that freedom. The majority of Americans, however, have decided that the Constitution is some sort of second Bible and follow it with the same sort of blind zeal. Thus, even though the rest of the civilized world understands how harmful public hate can be and how there are LITERALLY NO benefits to preserving the freedom to commit it, the Americans would rather follow an archaic document that's totally out of context with the reality of today. Spin that guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Your on ignore free at last, free at last - thank gawd almighty, I'm free at last! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) same subject? From "free speech beliefs" to "pronoun usage"??? Wonder why no one wants to continue with the threads original premise... The common thread you are ignoring is Ignatieff's permanent "American" state of mind. Can't really blame an editor for a commencment speech at Whitman College. This guy thinks he is Yankee Doodle. as for the Shrubs next speaking engagement... c'mon - how many times can he play Calgary? As many times as he wants. Edited April 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 The common thread you are ignoring is Ignatieff's permanent "American" state of mind. I wonder if he had an American state of mind when he lived in the United Kingdom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 The common thread you are ignoring is Ignatieff's permanent "American" state of mind. Can't really blame an editor for a commencment speech at Whitman College. This guy thinks he is Yankee Doodle. careful... you can't very well play your favorite poodle/lapdog/toady card against Ignatieff if you make him out to be "American". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 careful... you can't very well play your favorite poodle/lapdog/toady card against Ignatieff if you make him out to be "American". To the contrary....I can play the poodle card that much more. Wooof! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) I think it's fair to criticize Ignatieff as a convenient Canadian etc, but I really think you guys are off the mark labelling him as an 'American'. He lived in the US for a couple of years to teach at a prestigious University. Harper has more pro-American in him than Ignatieff does. Harper's speeches before becoming CPC leader were ridiculous. Only a special type of hack can criticize a man for questioning the US's protection of the right to baseless, ignorant, hurtful and sometimes violent hate. Edited April 2, 2009 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Wonder why no one wants to continue with the threads original premise... Okay, you're being rhetorical, I know, but let's put it out there in the open: No one wants to discuss the original premise because only Dobbin has read the book so only Dobbin can speak intelligently on it. Alta and BC_2004 don't want to get their ass kicked (again) so they change the topic as their ilk so readily does. The best that Alta can do is ignore you (which would be fine if you were actually a troll, which you're apparently not) and the best that BC_2004 can do is continue his incessant pronoun whines..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) Okay, you're being rhetorical, I know, but let's put it out there in the open: We don't need an usher..... No one wants to discuss the original premise because only Dobbin has read the book so only Dobbin can speak intelligently on it. Alta and BC_2004 don't want to get their ass kicked (again) so they change the topic as their ilk so readily does. The topic is Ignatieff and "free speech", not your narrow attempt to limit the domain. Ignatieff presented himself as an American at an American college....free speech says that's ok. The best that Alta can do is ignore you (which would be fine if you were actually a troll, which you're apparently not) and the best that BC_2004 can do is continue his incessant pronoun whines..... ...followed by your incessant protest whines...to no avail. Hey Canada...."WE" invaded Iraq in 2003! Edited April 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I wonder if he had an American state of mind when he lived in the United Kingdom? No, that would have been time for the cloaking device set to "British" mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 I think it's fair to criticize Ignatieff as a convenient Canadian etc, but I really think you guys are off the mark labelling him as an 'American'. He lived in the US for a couple of years to teach at a prestigious University. Mr. Ignatieff labeled himself as an American. Harper has more pro-American in him than Ignatieff does. Harper's speeches before becoming CPC leader were ridiculous. Being "pro American" is decidedly different from claiming to be an American. Only a special type of hack can criticize a man for questioning the US's protection of the right to baseless, ignorant, hurtful and sometimes violent hate. Yes...meet Thomas Jefferson....special hack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.