Ignatieff: "I have a dream"

[punked]

This is what you said earlier, now you prove yourself wrong. Thanks kiddo . Btw does your mom know you're up this late?

Did you just declare victory after proving nothing and being shown 40% of the population is not the majority of it? Also that you can win 40% as many times as you want in 1979 it didn't even mean the Liberals could form government? It is like talking to a wall.

Ps you do know Joe Clark won that election with 35% of the popular vote right?

Edited August 31, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Layton didn't know he was dealing with someones only thing he knows he stands for is to kill the left in the country.

So then I expect that we will never see Layton support a Liberal government then. And if we do, I'll remind you about the conversation.

[punked]

So then I expect that we will never see Layton support a Liberal government then. And if we do, I'll remind you about the conversation.

Layton would support Harper if it meant actually achieving something for Canada. It is the Liberals who support, and don't suport the government not on policy but on random intervals of when they think they can win an election.

'

[jdobbin]

Layton would support Harper if it meant actually achieving something for Canada. It is the Liberals who support, and don't suport the government not on policy but on random intervals of when they think they can win an election.

'

Think this is what Layton did in 2006 when he voted down the Liberals. He did support Harper but I'm not exactly sure it achieved something for Canada. It did achieve something for this party though.

[punked]

Think this is what Layton did in 2006 when he voted down the Liberals. He did support Harper but I'm not exactly sure it achieved something for Canada. It did achieve something for this party though.

I love how much Liberals are still living in 2006. Yah you stole money from the people of Canada yah you deserved to be kicked out of government. Maybe next time you will remember no one will support you when you steal from the people. Deal with it.

[jdobbin]

I love how much Liberals are still living in 2006. Yah you stole money from the people of Canada yah you deserved to be kicked out of government. Maybe next time you will remember no one will support you when you steal from the people. Deal with it.

And yah, it led to the Tories in power which the NDP admit was not good for Canada. And yah ever since, the NDP have tried to form a coalition with the party they voted out only a short time before. These are principles?

Edited August 31, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

And yah, it led to the Tories in power which the NDP admit was not good for Canada. And yah ever since, the NDP have tried to form a coalition with the party they voted out only a short time before. These are principles?

Tooo bad your party stole from the people of Canada then eh? I would be very disappointed if the NDP did not kick thieves out of parliament. That is a crime you don't get run the country if you are criminals. Honestly bringing up 2006 like it was some kinda of NDP mistake and not a Liberal one shoes me the Liberals haven't spent enough time in the wilderness. THE LIBERALS STOLE FROM THE PEOPLE OF CANADA.

[jdobbin]

Tooo bad your party stole from the people of Canada then eh? I would be very disappointed if the NDP did not kick thieves out of parliament. That is a crime you don't get run the country if you are criminals. Honestly bringing up 2006 like it was some kinda of NDP mistake and not a Liberal one shoes me the Liberals haven't spent enough time in the wilderness. THE LIBERALS STOLE FROM THE PEOPLE OF CANADA.

Actually, the conclusions of the judicial inquiry found no elected Liberal guilty of that.

[punked]

Actually, the conclusions of the judicial inquiry found no elected Liberal guilty of that.

Ohhhhh sooooo that makes it all better right? Again not enough time in the wilderness if you still blame the NDP for your parties mistakes.

[Wild Bill]

Actually, the conclusions of the judicial inquiry found no elected Liberal guilty of that.

Of course! And Mulroney did nothing wrong in the Schrieber affair!

In the words of the immortal Slip Mahoney, leader of the Bowery Boys: "Indubiously!"

[jdobbin]

Of course! And Mulroney did nothing wrong in the Schrieber affair!

According to the law, he didn't.

[jdobbin]

Ohhhhh sooooo that makes it all better right? Again not enough time in the wilderness if you still blame the NDP for your parties mistakes.

Some people blame the NDP for electing a Conservative government.

[punked]

Some people blame the NDP for electing a Conservative government.

As long as they kicked the thieves out.

[Mr.Canada]

As long as they kicked the thieves out.

I applaud your rabid loyalty to the left wing but do I have a question. Do you really think that the NDP will ever be in the PMO? If not why support a party that can most likely never win?

[capricorn]

Yes, we get it. You don't like Ignatieff.

That's not it at all. I like Ignatieff and have said so more than once. That has nothing to do with my belief that the Liberal Party made a mistake in their choice of leader. I was disappointed that the Liberals suspended internal democracy by anointing a leader that is quickly turning into a malleable puppet.

[madmax]

Think this is what Layton did in 2006 when he voted down the Liberals. He did support Harper but I'm not exactly sure it achieved something for Canada. It did achieve something for this party though.

No confidence in a failing government that has already announced that the situation is so untenable that it is pulling the plug on itself. The fact is, Martin was a piss poor strategist once he achieved power. The Liberals and their supporters have a tendency to deny that they stole a shitload of money from the public purse, where embedded with Scandal, and their Leader was still trying to jab knives in the back of Chretian and his remaining loyalists. This was all about Paul Martin and the failure to retain government falls in no one elses hands but his own.

Paul Martin stage managed the fall of his government and couldn't manage to retain government.

It is in Liberals best interest to try to rewrite history to the masses. But it will not be true.

[madmax]

And yah, it led to the Tories in power which the NDP admit was not good for Canada. And yah ever since, the NDP have tried to form a coalition with the party they voted out only a short time before. These are principles?

IIRC the NDP and the LPC signed a written agreement to form a coalition government with a set agenda.

Mr. Ignatieff signed this document, and tossed it into the waste bucket, to go his own way.

If I have to pick principles, of all the parties, it is the Liberals that have the fewest and it is the reason the public allows them so much slack. It is expected that the Liberals have no principles, just the desire to govern and hold government.

The Conservatives have principles and thus it is a bigger wave of anger when they toss them aside, which they are prone to do.

The NDP of all the parties has the most principles and it is in the Liberals interest to create the illusion that the NDP doesn't have any.

Obviously the NDP has a criteria that if accepted will earn their support.

The Liberals held no criteria to support the Conserative Government.

The Conservatives have no interest in supporting any of the NDP agenda.

The Liberals could support some of the NDP agenda if it would get them to the promised land.

Regardless, the two parties that have some leverage, the BQ and the NDP are outvoted and not supported as the Liberals have been voting with the Conservatives close to 100 times in a row.

When the Liberals choose not to support the government, the Conservatives will have to look for another dance partner, and quite frankly, the CPC vision has only been pallatable to Liberals.

The biggest problem the Current Liberals have is that Ignatieff is to the right of Stephen Harper. While he thinks he is a Liberal or stands for Canadian Values, it is apparent his time in the US has greatly affected his vision.

Few Canadians would support torture or Pre Emptive or Imperial Warfare. That puts Ignatieff up on the elitists page and to the right of Harper.

I believe the NDP has principles that do not involve pre emptive war, or support for torture.

Edited August 31, 2009 by madmax

[punked]

I applaud your rabid loyalty to the left wing but do I have a question. Do you really think that the NDP will ever be in the PMO? If not why support a party that can most likely never win?

Never is a long time. They put a man on the moon, we are going to Mars, I think the NDP is not the least likely thing that will ever happen Mr. C.

[madmax]

Some people blame the NDP for electing a Conservative government.

Liberal talking points. The public votes and the Conservatives won an election in spite of Stephen Harpers best efforts. Some people blame Martin for calling an early election and surrending the Liberal Majority for a Liberal Minority. Wanna blame that on the NDP too? Martin orchestred himself into a Minority government and then painted himself into a corner. It was the Liberals who were unable to negotiate their way around the sponsership scandal and the theft of the publics confidence.

There is no one short of a Liberal Partizan spewing nonsense that would suggest that the NDP elected a Conservative government. If you are going to blame anyone you have TWO good choices to blame.

Jean Chretian and Paul Martin.

Their failures led to the election of the Conservatives as people were no longer comfortable with the fox in the henhouse and the public choose to give the CPC an opportunity to govern on a short leash.

Infact the Liberals have continued to influence government as they have supported the Harper Conservatives every step along the way.

One could argue that the Minority government from 2006 to 2009 has been a CPC/LPC government as the CPC have turned to no other party for support during this time.

The CPC have done what it takes to maintain that Liberal support, not once having faced a confidence motion, and even getting the Liberals to end their threat of challenging the government in November of 2008 to the period of acceptance of the Conservative Agenda in 2009.

That includes support for all those December Patronage Appointments.... LOL.

[jdobbin]

IIRC the NDP and the LPC signed a written agreement to form a coalition government with a set agenda.

However, they keep saying the Liberals can't be trusted so my view is if they ever do support them again, they are either unprincipled or worse.

Few Canadians would support torture or Pre Emptive or Imperial Warfare. That puts Ignatieff up on the elitists page and to the right of Harper.

Good thing Ignatieff doesn't believe in torture either.

I believe the NDP has principles that do not involve pre emptive war, or support for torture.

Do they now? Supporting the Liberals means they did kind of support that, right? That is, if you truly believe that is what the Liberals support.

Edited August 31, 2009 by jdobbin

[waldo]

The NDP of all the parties has the most principles and it is in the Liberals interest to create the illusion that the NDP doesn't have any.

Few Canadians would support torture or Pre Emptive or Imperial Warfare. That puts Ignatieff up on the elitists page and to the right of Harper.

I believe the NDP has principles that do not involve pre emptive war, or support for torture.

you continue to parrot the same NDP talking points... and you continue to ignore the numerous times you've been beat back on the "torture support allegations". And now, what's this... something new - pre-emptive war!

... in the context of Iraq, Ignatieff fully qualified his position on pre-emptive war:

We need national and international rules to control such wars. This may require both Congressional legislation and United Nations resolutions. Pre-emptive war can be justified only when the danger that must be pre-empted is imminent, when peaceful means of averting the danger have been tried and have failed and when democratic institutions ratify the decision to do so. If these are the minimum tests pre-emptive war has to meet, the Iraq war failed to meet all three.

and exactly what are you at odds with in the above Ignatieff quote... exactly at odds with? If one wishes to question principles... perhaps you should look at your own unprincipled out-of-context attempts in continuing to ploy those NDP talking points.

[punked]

you continue to parrot the same NDP talking points... and you continue to ignore the numerous times you've been beat back on the "torture support allegations". And now, what's this... something new - pre-emptive war!

... in the context of Iraq, Ignatieff fully qualified his position on pre-emptive war:

and exactly what are you at odds with in the above Ignatieff quote... exactly at odds with? If one wishes to question principles... perhaps you should look at your own unprincipled out-of-context attempts in continuing to ploy those NDP talking points.

Accept when the states ignored the UN Iggy was just fine with. He is a flippy floopy waffle

[madmax]

you continue to parrot the same NDP talking points... and you continue to ignore the numerous times you've been beat back on the "torture support allegations". And now, what's this... something new - pre-emptive war!

... in the context of Iraq, Ignatieff fully qualified his position on pre-emptive war:

and exactly what are you at odds with in the above Ignatieff quote... exactly at odds with? If one wishes to question principles... perhaps you should look at your own unprincipled out-of-context attempts in continuing to ploy those NDP talking points.

Then the NDP better get talking, because most of the critisism of Ignatieff comes from his Peers, and then from groups opposed to Ignatieff in his first leadership bid and of course, the Tories smell blood on this one two.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/08/30/cheney-...heikh-mohammed/

As CIA officials are facing potential prosecution in the US regarding enhanced interrogation/torture, and lawyers who provided legal opinion regarding these techniques now face disbarment, it may be a good time for the Liberal leader to clarify his justification of the use of waterboarding against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

Michael Ignatieff from Prospect Magazine, April 2006:

I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded.

) “Dick Cheney confirms Michael Ignatieff’s rationale for the use of waterboarding to prevent future terrorist attacks. Does Michael Ignatieff still hold this position?”

Indeed, while Cheney justifies (and supports) torture, the comparative quote above is one confirming the rationale (not support) of the other.

3) “It would seem that on waterboarding, that Michael Ignatieff’s position is closer to Dick Cheney — who signed off on use of EITs — rather than Barack Obama, whose AG is now looking into prosecuting those that carried it out.”

Dick Cheney has argued that waterboarding works as has Michael Ignatieff. This is illustrated by both quotes above.

Ignatief was weak on torture and wrong on pre emptive war.

That's your defence... LOL....

Ignatieff is a master of double speak and thus a perfect Liberal.

He supports pre emptive war. THis isn't new.

And yes, Ignatieff supported and justified water boarding of Khalid Shiek Mohammud.

The chickens are coming home to roost.

[jdobbin]

Accept when the states ignored the UN Iggy was just fine with. He is a flippy floopy waffle

The U.S. invaded Iraq on U.N. resolutions.

Canada believed there should be a specific resolution on the matter.

Ignatieff now says that specifics was the correct approach since it focused on how intentions shaped consequences. In short, Canada was right and he was wrong.

I wonder if Layton thought about consequences when he pushed for Canadian military to go to Darfur.

[madmax]

The U.S. invaded Iraq on U.N. resolutions.

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha