'Mr. Harper,you have failed us': Ignatieff

[Leafless]

"Mr. Harper, you have failed us," Ignatieff told 2,000 cheering supporters at the Liberal national convention in Vancouver.

"If you can't unite Canadians, if you can't appeal to the best in all of us, we can," Ignatieff said.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+h...8898/story.html

It seems Mr. Ignatief has been out of the country to long and does not know or forgets, that it his own party is to blame for the failure to unite Canada.

Prior to unilateral repatriation of the constitution in 1981 Quebec used to be a one party Liberal province.

Quebecers have not forgotten it was Pierre Trudeau who wanted and planned the repatriation despite the almost unanimous oppostiton of the National Assembly of Quebec.

Quebec has not forgotten Jean Chretien's oppositon to the Meech Lake Accord.

It is obvious to see Quebec's puppet masters, AGAIN, are already pulling Ignatief's strings.

If Mr. Ignatief really wants something to do then maybe he should try paying attention what a PM respomsibilities are in Canada:

defence,

criminal law,

employment insurance,

postal service,

census,

copyrights,

trade regulation,

external relations,

money and banking,

transportation,

citizenship, and

Indian affairs.

http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/governm...government.html

[g_bambino]

Prior to unilateral repatriation of the constitution in 1981... t was Pierre Trudeau who wanted and planned the repatriation despite the almost unanimous oppostiton of the National Assembly of Quebec.

Let's get a couple of basic facts straight here: it was 1982, not 1981, and "unilateral" means without input or help from any other source. An action undertaken with the approval of nine provinces out of ten, plus the federal parliament, can hardly be deemed one that was "unilateral". Further, it was the wording of the Canada Act and Charter that was objected to by Quebec, not patriation itself. (And how could there be repatriation when the document was never previously patriated?) Now, carry on...

[Leafless]

Let's get a couple of basic facts straight here: it was 1982, not 1981, and "unilateral" means without input or help from any other source.

As a matter of fact it was as early as 1980 Trudeau did make his own amending formula and went to Great Britain to get the law passed without the consent of the provinces but failed because the provinces objected brought him to court. The 1981 Supreme Court decision left both sides declaring victory.

All provinces agreed to Trudeau's proposed constitutional accord except Quebec.

In 1982 the Canada Act was passed and proclaimed by the Queen, bringing the constitution back to Canada.

An action undertaken with the approval of nine provinces out of ten, plus the federal parliament, can hardly be deemed one that was "unilateral".

Oh, okay, sure.

All the provincial premiers went over to Great Britain to repatriate the constitution.

Canada's provincial premiers except Quebec, RATIFIED it.

Further, it was the wording of the Canada Act and Charter that was objected to by Quebec, not patriation itself.

Nevertheless, they did not want it repatriated. That is the point.

Nitpicker.

And how could there be repatriation when the document was never previously patriated?

Simple.

Patriate is NOT a word.

Repatriate (although not totally accurate) in Canada's case is a word and mostly everyone uses it.

[waldo]

'Mr. Harper, you have failed us': Ignatieff

Yes... yes, Harper has failed us... Ignatieff's vision for Canada doesn't dispatch National unity in the name of political expediency... Ignatieff's vision embraces National unity.

[Borg]

Ignatief an American at heart

Out of touch with the working class

Hated by most agriculture operators and organizations

Left canada for money

Came back for power only

Traitor inside his own party

Liar to people in his party

Not to be trusted

He can go home anytime to the U.S.

An opportunistic low life with a deep set of pockets and good financial backing

Borg

[Smallc]

Ignatief an American at heart

Considering he spent more time in the UK, I don't see how that is so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Considering he spent more time in the UK, I don't see how that is so.

Just ask him to repeat his Whitman College speech, or other nuggets when his American cloaking device is set to <ON>:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

Edited May 3, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

You spend so much time on Canadians insecurities that you seem to forget your own. Very few Americans would take kindly to being told, "You American".

[bush_cheney2004]

You spend so much time on Canadians insecurities that you seem to forget your own. Very few Americans would take kindly to being told, "You American".

Really? I'm only one of more than 300,000,000 who would delight in such a thing.

Say it again please......

[g_bambino]

As a matter of fact it was as early as 1980 Trudeau did make his own amending formula and went to Great Britain to get the law passed without the consent of the provinces but failed because the provinces objected brought him to court. The 1981 Supreme Court decision left both sides declaring victory.

Sort of; but you entirely miss the point that the final act of patriation, of which you were speaking, did not occur until April 17, 1982.

All provinces agreed to Trudeau's proposed constitutional accord except Quebec.

Yes, and the word "unilateral" does not apply to such a scenario.

Repatriate (although not totally accurate) in Canada's case is a word and mostly everyone uses it.

Right; it's not accurate. Thank you. But, actually, "patriation" is neologism used uniquely in Canada.

If one is going to debate something, it's best that accuracy be adhered to as closely as possible, lest people get confused and the conversation derailed.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited May 3, 2009 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+h...8898/story.html

It seems Mr. Ignatief has been out of the country to long and does not know or forgets, that it his own party is to blame for the failure to unite Canada.

Prior to unilateral repatriation of the constitution in 1981 Quebec used to be a one party Liberal province.

Quebecers have not forgotten it was Pierre Trudeau who wanted and planned the repatriation despite the almost unanimous oppostiton of the National Assembly of Quebec.

Quebec has not forgotten Jean Chretien's oppositon to the Meech Lake Accord.

It is obvious to see Quebec's puppet masters, AGAIN, are already pulling Ignatief's strings.

Typical Leafless... The Charter is bad because it (in your opinion) gives control to Quebec, and the proof of it is that is was opposed by,,, Quebec. :lol:

Edited May 3, 2009 by CANADIEN

[punked]

I am getting seriously tired of this guy.

"Ignatieff moves on EI 'crisis'"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

I get it, it is a crisis now that Ontario and Quebec are hurting but in the 90's when the Liberals made all the rules we have now and the East was hurting it wasn't a crisis. It wasn't a crisis when the NDP's Yvon Godin has introduced bill after bill to fix EI over the past 5 years and Iggy was voting against them. It is a crisis now however when the Liberals can score some points TO FIX A PROBLEM THEY CREATED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. Seriously this guys is spineless and infuriating.

[Leafless]

If one is going to debate something, it's best that accuracy be adhered to as closely as possible, lest people get confused and the conversation derailed.

Derailing issue's is your speciality.

[Leafless]

Typical Leafless... The Charter is bad because it (in your opinion) gives control to Quebec,

Dragging in statements again not associated with this thread CANADIEN.

If I did say something along those lines it is because of the discriminatory application of the Charter by the federal government.

This has nothing to do with with HOW Quebec feels about the Charter or the Liberals initially losing Quebec because of it.

and the proof of it is that is was opposed by,,, Quebec. :lol:

That it was:

“It isn't acceptable,” said Jean Dorion of the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal.

“Of course we disagree with the Constitution that has been imposed forcibly on Quebec – this is not acceptable. But it's not a reason to desecrate a burial place.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al_gam_mostview

[Argus]

Yes... yes, Harper has failed us... Ignatieff's vision for Canada doesn't dispatch National unity in the name of political expediency... Ignatieff's vision embraces National unity.

Riiiiiiight.

Mouth noises are not going to convince smart people, but maybe the herd will vote for him if he just makes enough apple pie speeches. Even though he's exceedingly sparse with details.

[g_bambino]

Derailing issue's is your speciality.

And inane, gramatically incorrect commentary is yours...? But, enough with the compliments. You've been corrected; so, moving on....

[Leafless]

And inane, gramatically incorrect commentary is yours...? But, enough with the compliments. You've been corrected; so, moving on....

Good idea.

Go play on your grass roof.

If this is your latest project I sure has hell wouldn't want to know what the others are.

[g_bambino]

Go play on your grass roof. If this is your latest project I sure has hell wouldn't want to know what the others are.

Oh. That's a shame. Well, I'd still love to see the crafts you make at the Clarke, Leafless; I'm sure you express your angry voices very well through construction paper, glitter, and macaroni.

[daniel]

Recent polls (and even in the Mapleleaf website) shows Harper's in trouble regardless of what Leafless says here.

[capricorn]

It seems Mr. Ignatief has been out of the country to long and does not know or forgets, that it his own party is to blame for the failure to unite Canada.

It's simply a case of Ignatieff ignoring the harm that the Liberals have done to this country and hoping that Canadians have forgiven them. In the political polls thread, I said Ignatieff would draw heavily on the unity issue. He did so in his acceptance speech. Ignatieff played the unity card because he thinks this is the one issue that could galvanize Canadians against Harper.

He couldn't hammer the Conservatives on the economy, the number one issue uppermost on the minds of most Canadians these days, because he has backed every decision on the economy the Conservatives have made so far. Ignatieff didn't hammer on the deficit because he actually called for more stimulus spending and he knows this would irk more voters than it would please.

If Mr. Ignatief really wants something to do then maybe he should try paying attention what a PM respomsibilities are in Canada:

Ignatieff claims that the PM's one and only duty is to unite the country. See the trend in his approach? In fact he is saying: "Harper divides the country and I will unite the country. I am the next Captain Canada. Only I and the Liberals can fix what Harper has broken." This is how he put it:

"You have failed to understand that a prime minister has one job and one job only, which is to unite the people in this country. Mr. Harper, you have failed us. If you can't unite Canadians, if you can't appeal to the best in us, we can. We Liberals can build a federalism based on co-operation, not on confrontation."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1558041

Sure, unity is an important portfolio for a Prime Minister. But there is much, much more to governing this country than for a PM to concentrate all of his time and energy solely on the unity file.

Mainstream Canadian voters are not that gullible that they would buy into Ignatieff's manufactured unity crisis. They have seen the Liberals in action in Quebec when they put on their "Captain Canada" cape and gave us the sponsorship scandal. If the Liberals want to govern, they'd better come up with something better than setting themselves up as the saviours of Confederation.

Edited May 4, 2009 by capricorn

[CANADIEN]

If I did say something along those lines it is because of the discriminatory application of the Charter by the federal government.

This has nothing to do with with HOW Quebec feels about the Charter or the Liberals initially losing Quebec because of it.

Don't worry, I'll keep laughing as you try to mix contradictory facts (Quebec fifn't sign on the constitutional amendment) with fiction (Trudeau was workinh for Quebec at the expense of the ROC).

Now back to Ignatieff. Here we have Harper-lite, who has spent most of his adult life aaabroad, whohas the charisma of a bonsai, and who leads a party that was not too long ago on the brink of irrelevance.

Yet the Liberals are in a virtual tie with the Conservaaaaatives, and making modest in-roads in the West and Quebec. Says a lot about Harper.

[Leafless]

Oh. That's a shame. Well, I'd still love to see the crafts you make at the Clarke, Leafless; I'm sure you express your angry voices very well through construction paper, glitter, and macaroni.

I have never heard of the place.

But it sure sounds like you have.

I bet you are head honcho in the crafts mini workshop.

[g_bambino]

I bet you are head honcho in the crafts mini workshop.

Well, if you bet on that, then... you lose. I'm sure you're used to the feeling, though.

[Leafless]

Don't worry, I'll keep laughing as you try to mix contradictory facts (Quebec fifn't sign on the constitutional amendment) with fiction (Trudeau was workinh for Quebec at the expense of the ROC).

Well I'am not laughing trying to read your almost incomprehensible statement.

The facts pertain to two separate issue's. They are not contradictory.

Now back to Ignatieff. Here we have Harper-lite, who has spent most of his adult life aaabroad, whohas the charisma of a bonsai, and who leads a party that was not too long ago on the brink of irrelevance.

Yet the Liberals are in a virtual tie with the Conservaaaaatives, and making modest in-roads in the West and Quebec. Says a lot about Harper.

I say it says a lot about the faulty mentality of some Canadians.

And this applies to Americans who worshipped and voted in a nobody as president.

[Leafless]

Mainstream Canadian voters are not that gullible that they would buy into Ignatieff's manufactured unity crisis. They have seen the Liberals in action in Quebec when they put on their "Captain Canada" cape and gave us the sponsorship scandal. If the Liberals want to govern, they'd better come up with something better than setting themselves up as the saviours of Confederation.

The Liberals have come up with something different.

The leader of the federal Liberal party has threatened to push for an election if the minority Conservative government doesn't support proposals to reform the employment insurance system.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/03/...l-platform.html

This doesn't sound like anything Mr. Harper would be unable to handle.