Ignatieff's magnificent summer tour...

[Molly]

Nicky isn't the first to label me incorrectly, SH! By classic definitions, actually I'm a Liberal!

Pfft! Did you really mean to capitalize that L there, Bill?

So, how do you vote? I'd be really danged surprised if Nicky guessed wrong.

[Wild Bill]

Pfft! Did you really mean to capitalize that L there, Bill?

So, how do you vote? I'd be really danged surprised if Nicky guessed wrong.

Is it really fair to define me by how I vote? I'd like to vote Liberal but how can I if they don't act like Liberals?

I've been voting CPC only for lack of a better choice. Again, I'm more of a classic Liberal, which today looks more like the Libertarians.The modern Libertarians have some loopy aspects to their party platform so they're not THAT good a match for me and besides, it would be as much a waste to vote for them as for the Yogic Flyer Party.

When I was very young I voted Liberal but they changed too much for me under Trudeau. Like most Canadians, I voted for Mulroney for both of his landslide majorities until I realized that he was just like Trudeau's party, only better and slicker!

Reform was the first and only party that roused some enthusiasm in me for my vote! I did think that Manning was a bit hokey at times but the streak of populism in the party made me forgive any of that! I have enough confidence in my fellow Canadians that I was sure that if a party was based on responding to their wishes and values that it would do a better job looking after us than what we have seen from the other parties all these years.

Besides, if Reform did what we all wanted and it turned out wrong then we would have had no one to blame but ourselves! Might have been good for many citizens' education.

So if you're going to brand me a conservative because I have no other voting choice then fine, if that's how you look at things I can't do anything about it. However, I do think it would be more fair if I had the chance to vote for a Liberal party that actually acted like classic Liberals!

Maybe I would even be happy if the Liberal party acted like it had any firm values at all!

Edited July 16, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

So if you're going to brand me a conservative because I have no other voting choice then fine, if that's how you look at things I can't do anything about it. However, I do think it would be more fair if I had the chance to vote for a Liberal party that actually acted like classic Liberals!

We brand you a committed Conservative. You are not a

Liberal.

You may or may not be a liberal, or a conservative.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Molly

[bloodyminded]

Hey, I simply gave my opinion. If as you say, Canadians recognize the pearls rolling off Ignatieff's tongue, so much the better. It means more of them are dumbfounded by those gems than I thought.

I agree with much of the criticism of Ignatieff, and i also agree that the "sulphur" comment was remarkable for its stupidity and inappropriateness.

But it's not a "clever literary" remark.

Nor is quoting "best laid plans"; hardly an obscure and difficult literary reference.

The validity of most of the criticisms aside, I smell something a lot worse than the sulphurous Devil that I don't believe in: I smell the dumbing-down of Canadian culture...not actually, but in the opinion, maybe even the wishes, of the commentator you quoted.

"We don't like all that fancy-shmancy talk!" Ye gods.

[Wild Bill]

We brand you a committed Conservative. You are not a

Liberal.

You may or may not be a liberal, or a conservative.

Well, I guess that's fair, since the Liberals aren't Liberals either!

[trout]

Nano-thermite or "super thermite" is classed as an explosive.

A mixture of thermite and SULPHUR produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system.

This is useful in cutting through steel.

[Jack Weber]

Nano-thermite or "super thermite" is classed as an explosive.

A mixture of thermite and SULPHUR produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system.

This is useful in cutting through steel.

Uh....

What's useful to know in cutting steel is the knowledge of the three different flames in any oxy-fuel process and that "burning" steel is really a form of rapid oxidation because of steel susceptabilty to outside atmospheric comtamination when it get's near it's melting point...

As long as we are talking about ferrous metals....

[Uncle 3 dogs]

As mediocre party leaders go, you're right. Notably, the Liberal Party's ability to (s)elect a leader with potential has really slipped.

Yes he can but does he get across to mainstream Canadians? Because of his extensive academic background, it's not surprising that literary quotes and analogies are on the tip of his tongue. The "smell of sulfur" comment is one example. After the bus broke down today, to those on the bus he said "the best laid plans...", which is contained in a work by Robert Burns:

The best laid schemes of mice and men

Go often askew,

And leave us nothing but grief and pain,

For promised joy!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieffs-bus-breaks-down/article1638845/

A lot of this stuff is foreign to most Canadians who ask "what is he talking about?". He has to work on his communication and not come across as phony. I'm not convinced he can do this and it may well be his downfall.

Really? You think"most Canadians"never finished high school and are,therefore, unfamiliar with Robert Burns?

Edited July 19, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[nicky10013]

Well, I guess that's fair, since the Liberals aren't Liberals either!

Conservatives who use this line have obviously never read classical liberal literature. They leave it at On Liberty and don't move on to different yet equally important works.

[Wild Bill]

Conservatives who use this line have obviously never read classical liberal literature. They leave it at On Liberty and don't move on to different yet equally important works.

Actually Nicky, I have! What's more, I suspect you HAVEN'T!

Actions speak louder than words. The actions of the modern Liberal Party since Mike Pearson have had little or no relation to the classic definition of liberalism. To be fair, the present CPC is a bit vague, itself.

Explain to me how the present Liberal party expresses individualism, laissez-faire government, the need for less government and more citizen responsibility?

If you can have read my posts for all this time and think I'M a conservative then you have NO idea of the classic definitions! As I said, if you disagree or if you're listening to anyone to the right of Libby Davis then to you that's a conservative!

Money talks and bullcrap walks, plain and simple. You can play all the "one-up" games you want over who has read what book but it won't change what the modern Liberal party stands for, considering it really doesn't stand for specifically anything!

"I can play reggae, I can play disco, I can play anything you want!" "If I do, will you vote for me?"

Whatever will get them into power and keep them there, I guess.

[nicky10013]

Actually Nicky, I have! What's more, I suspect you HAVEN'T!

Actions speak louder than words. The actions of the modern Liberal Party since Mike Pearson have had little or no relation to the classic definition of liberalism. To be fair, the present CPC is a bit vague, itself.

Explain to me how the present Liberal party expresses individualism, laissez-faire government, the need for less government and more citizen responsibility?

If you can have read my posts for all this time and think I'M a conservative then you have NO idea of the classic definitions! As I said, if you disagree or if you're listening to anyone to the right of Libby Davis then to you that's a conservative!

Money talks and bullcrap walks, plain and simple. You can play all the "one-up" games you want over who has read what book but it won't change what the modern Liberal party stands for, considering it really doesn't stand for specifically anything!

"I can play reggae, I can play disco, I can play anything you want!" "If I do, will you vote for me?"

Whatever will get them into power and keep them there, I guess.

If I didn't know and didn't read them, then I wouldn't have received my degree. Individualism, laissez-faire, sure. However, I don't remember him opining on the need for small government. Indeed, John Stuart Mill argues for the modern day welfare state. Check out On the Principles of Political Economy. You'll be highly surprised. He states the need for health care, education, trade unions, labour standards and yes, even the banishment of private charity. The notion goes that private charities will invariably not suit the needs for all people. that they'll pick a fringe group and dote on them. Even then, they probably wouldn't have the resources to tackle the entire problem. His argument was that to ensure equality in the distribution services, the government would have to do that. That doesn't sound like small government to me. There's also a little part about curbing the tyranny of the majority. He recognized that radical majority thought could crowd out minority opinion and railed against that. Whatever you want to say, that's an approval for the restriction on personal freedom of expression.

The problem is people like you don't read past the line "men should have the liberty to do anything he pleases as long as it doesn't harm anyone else" and think, gee, I don't need to read the rest of it. There are quite startling limitations.

As for Liberal Party, what party stands more for the individual than the Liberals? Certainly not the NDP or the Conservatives; they come from a far more collective political theory than the Liberals. Indeed, no matter your problem with the ideological economics, the Liberals have instituted programs which they believe empower the individual to accomplish more in their lifetime. Also, let's be quite honest here, the two big issues in terms of individual rights today are abortion and gay marriage, which party is on the side of more freedom for the individual?

Edited July 20, 2010 by nicky10013

[capricorn]

The Liberal Express passed through Montreal. Ignatieff had this to say about his vision of Quebec within Canada.

M. Ignatieff a souligné que la vision de son parti est de construire un pays avec un «Québec au centre d'un Canada, avec un Canada qui ressemble au Québec et un Québec qui est prêt à participer pleinement dans l'aventure canadienne ».

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2010/07/20100722-065209.html

My translation:

"Mr. Ignatieff underlined that his party's vision is to build a country with a "Quebec at the center of Canada, with a Canada that resembles Quebec and a Quebec which is ready to participate fully in the Canadian adventure".

Whatever that means. I hope he explains it to the ROC when he has a minute.

[capricorn]

The magnificent tour continues to provide interesting insight into Ignatieff. In March, he wanted Helena Guergis sacked, as did the Liberal caucus.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton had some Easter weekend advice on Wednesday for the prime minister: cut Helena Guergis loose.

Both Ignatieff and Layton called on the minister of state for the status of women to either resign, or for Stephen Harper to fire her.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/31/tor-guergis-liar.html

At that time, the howls to dump her dominated the business of the House of Commons. The Liberals went so far as to ask the RCMP to check for possible improprieties in a mortgage held by Guergis. In the end, Ignatieff and his Liberals got their way and she was axed.

But now, at a Liberal Express stop in Trois Rivieres, Quebec, Ignatieff accused Harper of ruining her career.

«Nous n’avons jamais pensé que Helena Guergis était une grande ministre ou députée, a lancé le chef libéral lors d’un arrêt à Trois-Rivières. Mais sa carrière a été ruinée par son propre patron. C’est assez incroyable!»

My translation: "We never thought that Helena Guergis was a great minister or MP, said the Liberal leader during a stop in Trois-Rivieres. But her career was ruined by her own boss. It's pretty amazing!"

Yes Mr. Ignatieff, it's pretty amazing when you demand something from the Prime Minister, obtain what you want, then basically accuse Harper of going too far.

How is that unscripted tour going for you so far?

[waldo]

The magnificent tour continues to provide interesting insight into Ignatieff. In March, he wanted Helena Guergis sacked, as did the Liberal caucus.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/31/tor-guergis-liar.html

At that time, the howls to dump her dominated the business of the House of Commons. The Liberals went so far as to ask the RCMP to check for possible improprieties in a mortgage held by Guergis. In the end, Ignatieff and his Liberals got their way and she was axed.

But now, at a Liberal Express stop in Trois Rivieres, Quebec, Ignatieff accused Harper of ruining her career.

My translation: "We never thought that Helena Guergis was a great minister or MP, said the Liberal leader during a stop in Trois-Rivieres. But her career was ruined by her own boss. It's pretty amazing!"

Yes Mr. Ignatieff, it's pretty amazing when you demand something from the Prime Minister, obtain what you want, then basically accuse Harper of going too far.

How is that unscripted tour going for you so far?

and how is your continued unscripted parlay of CPC talking points... going for you... so far?

standard routine for all parties is to call for the demotion of cabinet ministers - when it actually happens, a demoted cabinet minister usually resurfaces in another portfolio or does time as a backbencher and, possibly, works their way back into favour. In this case, Harper completely and absolutely ruined (finished) Guergis' career by tossing her out of the party... as you translated. I don't seem to recall anyone... anyone... ever calling for that. Do you?

[kimmy]

My translation:

"Mr. Ignatieff underlined that his party's vision is to build a country with a "Quebec at the center of Canada, with a Canada that resembles Quebec and a Quebec which is ready to participate fully in the Canadian adventure".

Whatever that means. I hope he explains it to the ROC when he has a minute.

If they ever turn this into a Canada that resembles Quebec, I'm leaving for Australia.

-k

[capricorn]

and how is your continued unscripted parlay of CPC talking points... going for you... so far?

Excellent! Ignatieff is providing more gems than I had hoped for.

In this case, Harper completely and absolutely ruined (finished) Guergis' career by tossing her out of the party... as you translated.

So says Ignatieff. If you don't trust my translation, try the Google thingy.

I don't seem to recall anyone... anyone... ever calling for that. Do you?

What's your point?

[waldo]

Excellent! Ignatieff is providing more gems than I had hoped for.

great... your boldly accepting your parlay of CPC talking points is refreshing to read.

So says Ignatieff. If you don't trust my translation, try the Google thingy.

What's your point?

uhhhh... you mean other than pointing out that your references to the call for the removal of Guergis as a cabinet minister... don't at all match the degree to which Harper took it by completely removing her from the Conservative party. Which aligns with your translation pointing out that Harper took it further than was being called for... that Harper, as it stands, effectively, finished Guergis' political career.

[Molly]

I'm finding this rather entertaining, too.

Yet another reason to dispise Conservative partisans in general... here we have a gleeful listing of utterly meaningless minutiae, strained through a filter of gilded obtuseness....

Who are you addressing, and of what are you trying to convince them? Folks who might consider changing their vote? That you and your team-mates associates are obnoxious and utterly unreasonable?

Carry on. Don't let me interrupt you.

[capricorn]

uhhhh... you mean other than pointing out that your references to the call for the removal of Guergis as a cabinet minister... don't at all match the degree to which Harper took it by completely removing her from the Conservative party. Which aligns with your translation pointing out that Harper took it further than was being called for... that Harper, as it stands, effectively, finished Guergis' political career.

And your earlier comment.

standard routine for all parties is to call for the demotion of cabinet ministers - when it actually happens, a demoted cabinet minister usually resurfaces in another portfolio or does time as a backbencher and, possibly, works their way back into favour. In this case, Harper completely and absolutely ruined (finished) Guergis' career by tossing her out of the party... as you translated. I don't seem to recall anyone... anyone... ever calling for that. Do you?

Waldo, what I'm getting from your circuitous meandering is that you think Harper went over the top in removing her from caucus and that's what Ignatieff meant.

[capricorn]

I'm finding this rather entertaining, too.

Thank you. For the most part, the mainstream media seems rather disinterested in the tour. The local media are really the only source of info on this topic. Ignatieff is saying some rather interesting things that should be noted. Isn't this tour meant to bring Ignatieff closer to Canadians, to get to know him and to prepare him for a genuine election campaign? After all, he is the Prime Minister in waiting.

Oh. Speaking of meaningless minutiae, in Quebec Ignatieff was asked that stupid reporters' question "if you were a vegetable, what vegetable would you like to be"? His response was "I would be an asparagus". Let's see if in a future election campaign he is asked and sticks to asparagus. Is that meaningless enough for you?

Who are you addressing, and of what are you trying to convince them? Folks who might consider changing their vote? That you and your team-mates associates are obnoxious and utterly unreasonable?

I'm addressing anyone interested in knowing how Ignatieff's tour is coming along. In my OP I said I would keep MLW members informed of the Liberal Express tour and am doing just that. As for your comments about my personal characteristics, be assured I'm not here to be liked.

[Bonam]

Oh. Speaking of meaningless minutiae, in Quebec Ignatieff was asked that stupid reporters' question "if you were a vegetable, what vegetable would you like to be"? His response was "I would be an asparagus". Let's see if in a future election campaign he is asked and sticks to asparagus. Is that meaningless enough for you?

Man those questions are stupid. I especially hate how they turn up in so many job interviews.

[capricorn]

Bonam, if that's a question in job interviews today all I can say is I'm glad I'm retired.

---

Now, on to a more serious topic that is sure to displease some Liberal supporters reading here.

"We unite and he divides," Ignatieff said in an apparent reference to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and then, referring to another prime minister whose presence is far more palpable than that of the incumbent, added: "That is a key message here -that is the bone tradition of Trudeau ... of Chretien, Martin. ... We unite; they divide."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ignatieff+invokes+Pierre+Trudeau+tour+stop/3317511/story.html

A Quebec political columnist had this to say about Ignatieff invoking past Liberal leaders.

Le seul fait d'énumérer la liste des six derniers chefs de votre parti nous permet de mesurer sa déchéance : Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion et vous (qui ne valez guère mieux que les cinq autres).

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2010/07/20100723-075632.html

Google translation: "Merely enumerating the list of six leaders of your party we can measure its downfall: Pierre Elliott Trudeau, John Turner, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and you (not worth much better than the other five)."

The columnist also mentions that the Liberals need Quebec to win government but Harper can still be elected without Quebec. He adds, the contempt for the Liberals in Quebec is so great, nothing they propose for Quebecers would interest them.

Ignatieff will have to fine tune this whenever he campaigns in an election in La Belle Province.

Edited July 24, 2010 by capricorn

[waldo]

I'm finding this rather entertaining, too.

Yet another reason to dispise Conservative partisans in general... here we have a gleeful listing of utterly meaningless minutiae, strained through a filter of gilded obtuseness....

yes, very entertaining... particularly capricorn's brazenness in touting her CPC partisan glee and want to revel in utter minutiae. Quite telling - indeed!

[Jack Weber]

Well...To be fair,Mr.Ignatieff's Magnificient Summer Tour has been a bit on the "Keystone Cop" side of things...

[Borg]

I have been following the media coverage on Ignatieff's great Canadian summer tour. Ignatieff says he wants to win Canadians over, "door by door, handshake by handshake, baby by baby". But, by his own admission, it might kill him.

Seems any time I read about iffy and his tour - the son of that traitor - trudeau - gets as much or more press coverage.

The messiah comes and he has a solid silver spoon background - never had to work a day in his life or to worry about a single utility bill - and his daddy's name to help - therefore he will be the leader - after all he is a trudeau and he must be the best - the media loves him and the canuckleheads believe anything that is printed about him.

Screw iffy - yesterdays news - time for him to go back to his home to the US of A

Borg