The Harper legacy: Politics is war

[jdobbin]

Liberals DID do things first. They were, after all, in power for most of the last forty years. They have set a pattern of behaviour which is fairly easy to follow for someone who has been watching them since Trudeau.

As the post points out, Harper is the first to take his political ad campaign year round, all the time, the politics of the personal.

Yours is a party of politicians whose only purpose is self-enrichment. The NDP at least are filled with people who truly want to help - even if they are kind of misguided, and often ideologically bone headed and stupid about issues and policy. The Greens too are idiots, but at least they're in politics to accomplish something, just ike most of the Tories. I don't get that impression from Liberals.

And that is your right to think that. I don't make any attempt to change your vote as I don't think it will change no matter what.

Oh please. This is again evidence of the venal dishonesty of Liberals. You guys slashed health transfer payments to the provicnes by billions and billions, letting them take the heat for deteriorating health care. Then when you had huge surpluses, you hoarded them rather than doing anything to improve health care. That would have been bad enough on its own. But your insistence on turning every election into a dramatic defense of health care was just sickening. If you had really cared a damn about public health care you'd have put that money into solving the problems. But even now you don't have any ideas, any policies or initiatives to do anything about the problems of health care.

Transfers were slashed. That came with support from the electorate. The provinces in their own wisdom also slashed spending. However, they did more than that: they cut taxes and starved their healthcare systems completely.

It is that venal dishonesty of conservatives on that matter and laying the complete blame at the federal Liberal's door that is so laughable.

The right wanted to cut healthcare even more and that is why they took heat every election. Their answer was privatization without much indication of what the public system would like.

And I should vote for you because........ ?

I don't think you should vote Liberal. On justice, immigration and a whole host of issues, you are likely never to agree with Liberals.

[Moonbox]

Sleep deprivation is what our own police use. If a suspect does not request a lawyer, police will question a suspect till they are tired and disoriented.

It goes a little further in military prisons. Imagine being allowed to finally go to sleep only to be awoken 20 minutes later with a cold bucket of dirty water.

I think that is what most people believe torture is.

There's such a thing as psychological torture. You can totally destroy someone's mind without harming the body.

I'm not criticizing Ignatieff's position, because in large part I agree with his lesser of evils approach (to a limited extent). What miffs me about it is that he didn't stick to his guns and he totally reversed his original position -- that and the apologists reinterpreting his opinions on his behalf.

[Shady]

acts like a thug with hyperpartisan go for the throat sociopathic mad dog behaviour.

Or, that could be an accurate description of yourself.

[waldo]

I'm not criticizing Ignatieff's position, because in large part I agree with his lesser of evils approach (to a limited extent). What miffs me about it is that he didn't stick to his guns and he totally reversed his original position -- that and the apologists reinterpreting his opinions on his behalf.

we've been down this path before in other "torture discussion related" threads. There has been no so-called reversal in position - it is certainly your prerogative to attempt to substantiate your claim. Waiting...

[jdobbin]

Or, that could be an accurate description of yourself.

I would classify use as suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome and Harper Infatuation Syndrome.

[jdobbin]

It goes a little further in military prisons. Imagine being allowed to finally go to sleep only to be awoken 20 minutes later with a cold bucket of dirty water.

Is that how it is done?

There's such a thing as psychological torture. You can totally destroy someone's mind without harming the body.

I suppose then any police interrogation qualifies.

I'm not criticizing Ignatieff's position, because in large part I agree with his lesser of evils approach (to a limited extent). What miffs me about it is that he didn't stick to his guns and he totally reversed his original position -- that and the apologists reinterpreting his opinions on his behalf.

How exactly did he change his position on torture? He was fairly clear on it in his writings. I think it is you are misinterpreting.

[Shady]

I would classify use as suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome and Harper Infatuation Syndrome.

What about your vicious case of Harper Derangement Syndrome? Did he burn his toast this morning?

[Moonbox]

Is that how it is done?

It's a way it CAN be done while avoiding the convenient definition of 'torture' that Ignatieff and many throughout the world have taken.

I suppose then any police interrogation qualifies.

Nice try Jdobbin, but Guantanemo interrogations and Canadian police interrogations operate on an entirely different set of rules.

How exactly did he change his position on torture? He was fairly clear on it in his writings. I think it is you are misinterpreting.

To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. (from the Lesser Evils essay)

The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions.

Ignatieff was ANYTHING but clear on what he does or doesn't support, other than that it may be necessary to do 'evil' things. Here's his position in 2006:

Like Elshtain, I am willing to get my hands dirty, but unlike her, I have practical difficulty enumerating a list of coercive techniques that I would be willing to have a democratic society inflict in my name.

Basically he's saying, "I'd do some nasty things, but I wouldn't be willing to list them formally on paper and institutionalize it."

Ignatieff on torture- 2006

[Keepitsimple]

The misquotes in Quebec are not simple problems with translation. I think that much is clear.

My question was related to one of the original posts (Borg/Dobbin) and it had to do with the Conservative Reality/Attack ads....and I was curious as to whether you had seen any media reports that accused the quotes therein of being inaccurate....other than that French one.

QUOTE (Borg @ Jun 7 2009, 01:47 PM)

The ads are truth ads

Half the time they don't even accurately quote correctly as was pointed out this weekend in a few newspapers.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

What about your vicious case of Harper Derangement Syndrome? Did he burn his toast this morning?

I think your vicious case of Obama Derangement Syndrome and anti-Democrat hysteria is so over the top that even Rush Limbaugh would be astounded.

I'm sure the only Republican you ever thought was wrong was Lincoln.

[jdobbin]

It's a way it CAN be done while avoiding the convenient definition of 'torture' that Ignatieff and many throughout the world have taken.

Do you have a cite for this type of torture you describe?

And you are certain this is the type of thing that you believe Ignatieff was advocating.

Nice try Jdobbin, but Guantanemo interrogations and Canadian police interrogations operate on an entirely different set of rules.

I have no doubt. Did Ignatieff support the Guantanamo type?

To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. (from the Lesser Evils essay)

The question is not whether we should be trafficking in lesser evils but whether we can keep lesser evils under the control of free institutions.

Ignatieff was ANYTHING but clear on what he does or doesn't support, other than that it may be necessary to do 'evil' things. Here's his position in 2006.

I have seen all those quotes but it doesn't tell me that he supports the type of abuse you suggest.

[Shady]

I think your vicious case of Obama Derangement Syndrome and anti-Democrat hysteria is so over the top that even Rush Limbaugh would be astounded.

When Chavez and Castro are worried about being to the right of Obama, there is no syndrome, it's called reality.

I'm sure the only Republican you ever thought was wrong was Lincoln.

Nah, Lincoln was great. I do have problems with Roosevelt overall, and Bush domestically.

Hey, I just heard that Harper may have stubbed his toe. Congrats!

[jdobbin]

When Chavez and Castro are worried about being to the right of Obama, there is no syndrome, it's called reality.

And you are right of Attila?

Nah, Lincoln was great. I do have problems with Roosevelt overall, and Bush domestically.

Ah, thought you had problem with his civil war.

Hey, I just heard that Harper may have stubbed his toe. Congrats!

Hey, I had heard that you identified Obama as a magic Negro. Congrats!

[Smallc]

When Chavez and Castro are worried about being to the right of Obama, there is no syndrome, it's called reality.

What has he done that's so far left?

[Smallc]

I thought Attila was a left winger? Seriously.

[Shady]

Hey, I had heard that you identified Obama as a magic Negro. Congrats!

Nah, that was the LA Times.

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

LA Times

However, you seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with race, gender, and sexuality. It's really too bad you can't see people as individuals.

What has he done that's so far left?

Hmm, lets see. He's taken over several private businesses. I call them the 'Obama Business Empire'. He's fired the CEO of a private business. He's torn up contract law and literally given majority ownership to unions, who had the smallest share in their companies before the government intervened. He's raised taxes, and plans to raise more taxes. And he has a Czar for everything under the sun.

[Smallc]

Hmm, lets see. He's taken over several private businesses.

Harper's great though, right?

He's fired the CEO of a private business.

No he didn't fire the CEO of the company that was taking government money....he could have stayed...course, it probably would have been bad for GM.

He's torn up contract law and literally given majority ownership to unions, who had the smallest share in their companies before the government intervened. He's raised taxes, and plans to raise more taxes. And he has a Czar for everything under the sun.

Scary guy...sort of paranoid....eh?

[jdobbin]

Nah, that was the LA Times.

Which I recall you posted here.

However, you seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with race, gender, and sexuality. It's really too bad you can't see people as individuals.

I have never indicated anything of the sort. Can you give me a cite?

[August1991]

It is the response to the apologist denials that Harper only does things because the Liberals did it first. In this case, this is Harper's own personal war and it never end. It is go for the throat all the time, every time.

"Go for the throat"? I thought that's what Liberal PMs do.

I'm not defending Harper because "the Liberals did it first". Instead, I object to Simpson's (and your) supercilious pose. You and Simpson seem to think (Nixon style) that if the Liberals do it, it's good for Canada, Canadians and makes Canada a better society for all good-thinking people. The Tories, on the other hand, are these rabid, divisive people who separate Canadians and turn one against the other. Tories are mean-spirited.

Except. Liberals and Liberal policies (such as they are) are just as partisan and just as divisive. Alot of Canadians don't like Liberals and don't want to vote for them. These Canadians find that what Liberals do is bad.

No party has unanimous support. It is presumptuous for Simpson (and you) to argue that Harper's legacy is politics as war. All you are really saying is that at present, you are on the outside looking in.

-----

Dobbin, you have argued that Harper's ultimate goal is to destroy the Liberal Party. Do you mean that Harper would like to see the Liberals reduced to two seats? When Harper has won three back-to-back majorities, then perhaps you might make sense.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"Go for the throat"? I thought that's what Liberal PMs do.

I'm not defending Harper because "the Liberals did it first". Instead, I object to Simpson's (and your) supercilious pose. You and Simpson seem to think (Nixon style) that if the Liberals do it, it's good for Canada, Canadians and makes Canada a better society for all good-thinking people. The Tories, on the other hand, are these rabid, divisive people who separate Canadians and turn one against the other. Tories are mean-spirited.

Except. Liberals and Liberal policies (such as they are) are just as partisan and just as divisive. Alot of Canadians don't like Liberals and don't want to vote for them. These Canadians find that what Liberals do is bad.

No party has unanimous support. It is presumptuous for Simpson (and you) to argue that Harper's legacy is politics as war. All you are really saying is that at present, you are on the outside looking in.

-----

Dobbin, you have argued that Harper's ultimate goal is to destroy the Liberal Party. Do you mean that Harper would like to see the Liberals reduced to two seats? When Harper has won three back-to-back majorities, then perhaps you might make sense.

Harper will never win a single majority.

[jdobbin]

"Go for the throat"? I thought that's what Liberal PMs do.

In between elections and personal at every turn. I think not.

I'm not defending Harper because "the Liberals did it first". Instead, I object to Simpson's (and your) supercilious pose. You and Simpson seem to think (Nixon style) that if the Liberals do it, it's good for Canada, Canadians and makes Canada a better society for all good-thinking people. The Tories, on the other hand, are these rabid, divisive people who separate Canadians and turn one against the other. Tories are mean-spirited.

The Tories are mean spirited. As has been noted by even their allies, they seem miserable in power. Like Macbeth, they see enemies at every turn and undermine their own position by seeking to destroy those that they fear.

Except. Liberals and Liberal policies (such as they are) are just as partisan and just as divisive. Alot of Canadians don't like Liberals and don't want to vote for them. These Canadians find that what Liberals do is bad.

And that is their right. However, we don't nearly see the level of combativeness directed outward in every direction that we see from the Tories. It hurts them every time they lash out.

No party has unanimous support. It is presumptuous for Simpson (and you) to argue that Harper's legacy is politics as war. All you are really saying is that at present, you are on the outside looking in.

It is war. It is how Tom Flanagan has described. All out every day, all day to not merely defeat your enemy but to eradicate them entirely. He has written about it many times and you know this already. No other party has made its mission statement of destruction on such a grand scale.

Dobbin, you have argued that Harper's ultimate goal is to destroy the Liberal Party. Do you mean that Harper would like to see the Liberals reduced to two seats? When Harper has won three back-to-back majorities, then perhaps you might make sense.

I am repeating the mantra as outlined by Flanagan. Harper does not want the Liberals down to two seats. He wants the party eliminated to no member. He wants the provincial wings gone. He wants the municipal wings gone. He wants anyone who ever though Liberal gone.

It is you who don't see. Harper can't relax knowing there are Liberals anywhere. He sees enemies at every turn and as such sews the seeds of his own destruction.

[Shady]

The Tories are mean spirited.

So are you. You label anyone who disagrees with you as either a 'mad dog fear biter', or a racist, sexist, bigot and/or homophobe. It's part of nearly every one of your responses. And as a result, nobody in this forum takes you seriously anymore.

[jdobbin]

So are you. You label anyone who disagrees with you as either a 'mad dog fear biter', or a racist, sexist, bigot and/or homophobe. It's part of nearly every one of your responses. And as a result, nobody in this forum takes you seriously anymore.

Ho, what a lark. You obviously take me very seriously. You can't seem to avoid my posts.

I think most people know where you are coming from.

[Shady]

I think most people know where you are coming from.

As they do of you.

Has Harper burned his toast yet?

[jdobbin]

Has Harper burned his toast yet?

Has Obama switched his mustard? You are so funny. Every post is a laugh riot. You should be on Fox Late nite!