Liberal Party of Canada = General Motors

[August1991]

Am I wrong? Is the Liberal Party any different from GM?

We are facing organizations that seem invincible and believe that they have always been and will always be. But is that true? (Are they "Too Big To Fail"?)

Worse, both the federal Liberal Party and General Motors seem impervious to change. Until reality intrudes, these two organizations prefer denial and delinquency.

-----

In North America, we have always had Pontiac and Chevrolet. In Canada, we have always had the Liberals.

Well, General Motors, Pontiac and Chevrolet are broke. And the Liberals too.

The world has changed.

Edited May 16, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

In North America, we have always had Pontiac and Chevrolet. In Canada, we have always had the Liberals.

Well, General Motors, Pontiac and Chevrolet are broke. And the Liberals too.

The world has changed.

I think this is is a rather desperate attempt to link the the two.

[Leafless]

I think this is is a rather desperate attempt to link the the two.

Absolutely, with tax payers possibly on the hook to bail out the Libranos and their EI reforms.

[jdobbin]

Absolutely, with tax payers possibly on the hook to bail out the Libranos and their EI reforms.

You do know that there are rules against insulting names and political parties, right?

[Leafless]

You do know that there are rules against insulting names and political parties, right?

But Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are fair game, right?

If I remember correctly it was you who called Mr. Harper a liar.

[waldo]

But Mr. Harper and the Conservatives are fair game, right?

If I remember correctly it was you who called Mr. Harper a liar.

here, let me help... calling someone a liar isn't insulting; rather, it's simply character/trait defining, particularly if substantiated and broadly/generally accepted as fact. So... in this particular example: you can't call Mr. Harpo a liar... you can call Mr. Harper a liar (subject to the aforementioned caveats).

you're welcome - carry on

[jdobbin]

If I remember correctly it was you who called Mr. Harper a liar.

That is not an insult.

[Bryan]

That is not an insult.

It is if you are lying.

[Wild Bill]

That is not an insult.

Would this be considered insulting?

"The accidental Albertan will never get a majority. He is a sociopath in that he would rather attack than govern. He is opportunists who cares nothing for Canada, only power and prestige that comes with being PM. As soon as he leaves politics, he'll be on a plane to work for FOX News. Accidental Albertan, nothing more."

What about this one?

"Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back."

Or this?

"And that is why the Liberals are going to come our on the offensive right back that Harper is a mad dog sociopath intent on attacking rather than governing."

There are lots more.

[Smallc]

It is if you are lying.

If he was lying, it would be, but since he's not, it isn't.

[jdobbin]

It is if you are lying.

Afraid not. It is you who is lying.

[jdobbin]

"The accidental Albertan will never get a majority. He is a sociopath in that he would rather attack than govern. He is opportunists who cares nothing for Canada, only power and prestige that comes with being PM. As soon as he leaves politics, he'll be on a plane to work for FOX News. Accidental Albertan, nothing more."

What about this one?

Nope, not an insult. It is a description.

"Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back."

Or this?

I've said this describes his behaviour so it is not an insult.

"And that is why the Liberals are going to come our on the offensive right back that Harper is a mad dog sociopath intent on attacking rather than governing."

There are lots more.

Not an insult either since I am talking about his behaviour. If I called him stupid, it would be insult. If I called his behaviour stupid, it would not be. There is a difference.

I have been quite clear that I am describing his behaviour. However, free free to report the post and let the moderator decide.

[Wild Bill]

Nope, not an insult. It is a description.

I've said this describes his behaviour so it is not an insult.

Not an insult either since I am talking about his behaviour. If I called him stupid, it would be insult. If I called his behaviour stupid, it would not be. There is a difference.

I have been quite clear that I am describing his behaviour. However, free free to report the post and let the moderator decide.

Why would I be so childish as to 'report' you? I'm simply gathering information to make my own estimation of your character.

I find it ironic to find myself defending your attacks on Harper considering I'm not his biggest fan these days but then again, I would even defend Ignatief from someone who attacked with your tactics.

You see, I believe in fairness and justice for all, including those I don't like. Then again, I'm not a modern Liberal.

I really think you are nitpicking in your alibi. Your descriptions about Harper's behaviour are not facts, of course, but merely your opinion. To vent your opinions in such an insulting manner may be within the letter of the law but hardly within its spirit.

Then again, is that not one of the fundamental aspects of a modern liberal? To nitpick with legalisms while the spirit of a law is ignored?

In my humble opinion, of course.

[jdobbin]

Why would I be so childish as to 'report' you? I'm simply gathering information to make my own estimation of your character.

The rules are clear for these forums. If you believe they are insults, it is the responsibility of the members to report them. It is not childish.

If you believe what I said are insults, it is not childish to report it. It is a responsibility. I disagree that they are insults since I am describing the behaviour in Harper that seems to lead him astray. I think he is acting like a mad dog sociopath. He can't seem to help himself in this regard.

I find it ironic to find myself defending your attacks on Harper considering I'm not his biggest fan these days but then again, I would even defend Ignatief from someone who attacked with your tactics.

Then report it. I am not going to back down in my view that Harper acts against his best interests and there is no polite way to describe the behaviour.

You see, I believe in fairness and justice for all, including those I don't like. Then again, I'm not a modern Liberal.

I really think you are nitpicking in your alibi. Your descriptions about Harper's behaviour are not facts, of course, but merely your opinion. To vent your opinions in such an insulting manner may be within the letter of the law but hardly within its spirit.

I never stated my view of Harper is a fact. I said it my view that he is acting like a sociopath in his attacks.

Then again, is that not one of the fundamental aspects of a modern liberal? To nitpick with legalisms while the spirit of a law is ignored?

That is your right to have those views. But then it seems that the modern Conservative Mulroney is a nitpicker then and Harper did his best to protect him.

In my humble opinion, of course.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. It isn't just a right, it is a responsibility.

I say that Harper would rather attack than govern. His government has taken personalization in politics to an extreme. No other party has taken an advertising campaign outside of an election to a permanent campaign of attack. The Liberals certainly had the money to do it in 1990s but didn't. Harper has a permanent campaign of attack and it is hard to see that changing. It is in his make-up: a deepseated need to destroy the Liberal party and not merely defeat it. It is so deeply felt by him that he would attack rather than govern.

His behaviour is sociopathic in its self destructiveness. It never seems to achieve his goal of majority support and yet he goes down that path every time.

[Keepitsimple]

That is not an insult.

How about your calling him a mad dog sociopath. Is that an insult?

[Molly]

For purposes of the rules, I'd call it an observation, since he also makes to case to illustrate its validity.

[jdobbin]

How about your calling him a mad dog sociopath. Is that an insult?

Since I said that it his behaviour I am describing, no it isn't an insult. I have gone on to describe at length why I think his behaviour is such.

You do believe that describing someone's behaviour is not an insult, don't you?

[Keepitsimple]

Since I said that it his behaviour I am describing, no it isn't an insult. I have gone on to describe at length why I think his behaviour is such.

You do believe that describing someone's behaviour is not an insult, don't you?

By that befuddling leap in logic, I could call Mr. Ignatieff a raving lunatic (or worse) and go on to give my opinion of his behaviour to support why that is so. Describing someone's behavior is perfectly acceptable....the accompanying insult is not......an insult is an insult. As I've said a couple of times Dobbin, it's sad to see you of all people, stooping to the depths of other angry Liberals.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

Am I wrong? Is the Liberal Party any different from GM?

We are facing organizations that seem invincible and believe that they have always been and will always be. But is that true? (Are they "Too Big To Fail"?)

Worse, both the federal Liberal Party and General Motors seem impervious to change. Until reality intrudes, these two organizations prefer denial and delinquency.

-----

In North America, we have always had Pontiac and Chevrolet. In Canada, we have always had the Liberals.

Well, General Motors, Pontiac and Chevrolet are broke. And the Liberals too.

The world has changed.

There was a time when to be the boss at General Motors was as high as you could go - it was the most respected corporate postion on the planet - and there was a time when conservatism ruled all...then they declined and liberalism squeezed it's ugly little head into the game - NOW - liberalism is strong - NOT because it is actually strong but because it makes the population weak - and those on top of liberalism appear to be strong because they have turned the average person into the bottom man or "pillow biter" - I am starting to believe that the liberals are putting estrogen in the water supply..... In time they will have ultimate power because they will have demasculated 98 % of all males-------------------THEN they will fall - because the Muslims and others they invited in are MEN - who don't do the nice guy or gay metro-sexual hetro fag thing... Then the liberals will fall...as those non-compliant to their social engineering grow powerful.

[jdobbin]

By that befuddling leap in logic, I could call Mr. Ignatieff a raving lunatic (or worse) and go on to give my opinion of his behaviour to support why that is so.

If you did describe the behaviour as such, I wouldn't consider it an insult worthy of objecting to.

If you want to pursue every criticism as an insult, you will go far beyond what this forum deems inappropriate.

I consider insults to be playing around with leader and party names. I consider insults to be namemcalling with no elaboration or clarification. I consider insults to be personalizing a response with a negative rejoinder.

You are free to disagree that Harper's negative ad campaign is the product of a cooly rational mind but don't assume that my view of the campaign someone who behaves like a mad dog sociopath is an insult.

[August1991]

Afraid not. It is you who is lying.

I don't know who is doing the lying but I do know, Dobbin, that you are diverting attention.

I started this thread to compare two (once) great institutions (GM and the LPC) and to consider how some people abused them. Very quickly Dobbin, like someone in denial, you turned the thread to a discussion of Stephen Harper.

The question is not Stephen Harper. The question is the federal Liberal Party (and indirectly, General Motors).

There was a time when to be the boss at General Motors was as high as you could go - it was the most respected corporate postion on the planet - and there was a time when conservatism ruled all...

Oleg, I'll give you credit for getting this thread back on track. But as an urban (Toronto) Canadian, you miss the point. Conservatism ruled all?

----

The federal Liberal Party has largely dominated Canadian history since the death of Macdonald, just as General Motors rose to prominence over Ford in the 1920s. (How these two institutions -GM or LPC- became the main player in their respective game of a few players deserves another thread.)

I am more intrigued by the presumption of these two institutions: General Motors and the Liberal Party of Canada. People in both organizations believe that they are an expression of society at large. Call it entitlement , or too big to fail. Such people are resistant to change.

Liberal Party politicians (or apparatchiks), like managers at GM (or the UAW), have trouble coping with a changed world. They both (GM or LPC) want to go back to an easier, better world. By choosing Ignatieff, the Liberal Party wants to go back to the era of Trudeau - just like GM would prefer to produce full size Pontiacs.

Both GM/UAW and the Liberals are in denial. They don't want to change.

Edited May 21, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I don't know who is doing the lying but I do know, Dobbin, that you are diverting attention.

I believe it is you who dominates in misdirection.

I started this thread to compare two (once) great institutions (GM and the LPC) and to consider how some people abused them. Very quickly Dobbin, like someone in denial, you turned the thread to a discussion of Stephen Harper.

You are making connections for your own hyperpartian reasons. Don't deny it.

The question is not Stephen Harper. The question is the federal Liberal Party (and indirectly, General Motors).

And I say it is about Harper.

I am more intrigued by the presumption of these two institutions: General Motors and the Liberal Party of Canada. People in both organizations believe that they are an expression of society at large. Call it entitlement , or too big to fail. Such people are resistant to change.

And Conservatives consider themselves the voice of Opposition and protest.

Liberal Party politicians (or apparatchiks), like managers at GM (or the UAW), have trouble coping with a changed world. They both (GM or LPC) want to go back to an easier, better world. By choosing Ignatieff, the Liberal Party wants to go back to the era of Trudeau - just like GM would prefer to produce full size Pontiacs.

By choosing Harper, the Tories chose a man who is most happy protesting and opposing rather than governing.

Both GM/UAW and the Liberals are in denial. They don't want to change.

And the Tories don't want to govern.

Edited May 21, 2009 by jdobbin

[August1991]

By choosing Harper, the Tories chose a man who is most happy protesting and opposing rather than governing.

Dobbin, don't divert the attention. This isn't about Harper.

----

The federal Liberal Party is like General Motors and the UAW/CAW: these are once successful institutions that refuse to change.

The Liberal Party, by choosing Ignatieff, is in denial. Like GM, the UAW and the CAW.

The world is changing.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, don't divert the attention. This isn't about Harper.

I think you are diverting attention. It is about Harper.

The federal Liberal Party is like General Motors and the UAW/CAW: these are once successful institutions that refuse to change.

The Liberal Party, by choosing Ignatieff, is in denial. Like GM, the UAW and the CAW.

The world is changing.

Conservatives are not about change. They are about preventing it.

[scribblet]

Would this be considered insulting?

.....

"Looks like Harper the mad dog sociopath is back."

Or this?

"And that is why the Liberals are going to come our on the offensive right back that Harper is a mad dog sociopath intent on attacking rather than governing."

There are lots more.

Not only insulting but a tad intemperate - maybe the head was on the verge of exploding.. - ( sorry couldn't resist)

It is these types of comments and over the top stereotyping of posters who disagree as 'radical right wing extremists' , it's just not worth getting into such discussions any more.

cheers