[Mustang1]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Actually JJ I have. I've mentioned that Iggy is little more than a national chameleon. Whatever country he's lived in, he's considered himself to be OF that nation. While he was in GB, he considered himself to be one of them. In the US, he considered himself to be one of them. When he was given the leadership of the LPC, he was suddenly one of us.
If Iggy can't keep his nationality straight, how the hell can we trust him to be able to effectively run a country he's spent very little time in or doesn't identify himself with until it's convenient for him to do so?

See, a well-travelled potential PM is a good thing in my book. I really relished my travelling years and it opened my eyes. With Canada having such a diverse urban population, I think Iggy and his exposure to other cultures is a plus. Him having to hide it says something about our own views on who is a Canadian.

That aside I won't be voting for him but it's not because of the 'Just visiting' thing. This whole Iggy and the nationalism thing is very silly.

I have no trouble with a well-travelled [potential] PM. That's not the issue. It's his self-identifying that's just ONE of the issues with him
Is he a Briton, an American or a Canadian? He needs to make up his damn mind!
I'll also lay you 10:1 odds that once Iggy realizes he's a lame duck with no chance at the PMO, he'll leave Canada again.
Any takers?

Not gonna' take that one either, but, in Iggy's defense, it's not as though the Liberals trotted out too many heavyweights during their last leadership convention (although i'm personally a fan of Kennedy). He kinda' was the best option in a shallow field.

[raydan]

Mustang1 wrote:

I agree. It's rather empty rhetoric. And there's still time to change your mind. (although, all joking aside, Iggy has been a real disappointment, so you do have a point)

Call me a political pessimist.
For me, pretty much all politicians have been, are, or will be real disappointments.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock wrote:

I'd say that was a bet nobody will take PA9!

Exactly EB, it's a sucker bet

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Mustang1 wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

I have no trouble with a well-travelled [potential] PM. That's not the issue. It's his self-identifying that's just ONE of the issues with him
Is he a Briton, an American or a Canadian? He needs to make up his damn mind!
I'll also lay you 10:1 odds that once Iggy realizes he's a lame duck with no chance at the PMO, he'll leave Canada again.
Any takers?

Not gonna' take that one either, but, in Iggy's defense, it's not as though the Liberals trotted out too many heavyweights during their last leadership convention (although i'm personally a fan of Kennedy). He kinda' was the best option in a shallow field.

True enough. Kinda like deciding between botulism, ptomaine and salmonella.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce wrote:

IMO, the NDP and "sound policy" go together like picnics and black bears.

I disagree with that. We'll come back to why that is below.

OnTheIce wrote:

The NDP is arguably the most irrelevant party we have. They jump from special interest group issues all year round and never come to the table with issues that affect the majority of Canadians or even a large amount of Canadians.

You're absolutely correct. The NDP is pretty much irrelevent. But why? The answer is that the NDP came to prominence on medicare and labour reform. Those items have become part of the fabric of Canadian society. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives would contest those platforms any more. In other words, what was once NDP policy is presently generally accepted policy among all parties. Since Tommy Douglas' days, the Liberals have moved to the left and the Conservatives have moved even farther to the left. This has forced the NDP into becoming an "Issues Party" rather than one with any discernible political philosophy. The NDP has moved away from traditional socialist values and into the realm of gays' rights, environmental issues, pot legalization and a handful of other issues that are unrelated to its traditional politics. The NDP has become irrelevent because it has already succeeded in bringing its core values to Canadian society.
edits for spelling

[Khar]

Mustang1 wrote:

Actually, he's been woefully unaware on Canadian topics before here (with the same style of merely posting without context), and how exactly is his is post on past Canadian culture relevant to the current partisan campaign by the federal conservatives?

The fact of the matter here is that he aped a cartoon that had little to do with the thread's salient point and all i did was call him in on it. The interesting thing is that others made similar observations and you chose to exclude them from your directed little Karma-bomb. Interesting. Maybe you should focus on your own posting habits before chastising mine?

It has been characterized as "American-style" numerous times in the media and in spin off discussions on this site, and past campaigns have focused on the differences between the States and Canada. Indeed, the current attack advertisement campaign by the Conservatives continues to include comments about the tenure of Ignatieff in the States even though much of his time was outside of both Canada and the US, as well as positive ads boasting Canada's economic performance in comparison to the States. American bashing has been prevalent for a long time, and it makes sense that it would continue in this case.

It was, hence, an irreverent, flippant response to a short comment from Zipperfish, but it did make a point in this thread which followed up a discussion which had already been going for some time (JJ began this train of thought on page 2, talking about the culture of it in Canada, and those don't develop overnight), as I pointed out in the response previous to the one yours had.

I did respond to Gunnair's post (well before I responded to your post), and in doing so provided my reasoning why I felt it was important for all folks in this thread. I did respond to the topic, and to all others who had "called him out." Your response, on the other hand, to the entire topic, salient point or no, was a personal attack on a singular member for reasons which did not expand for others who agreed with him and while ignoring the points of others made in this thread.

I responded to your post because it was on an entirely different topic, and I don't think it's fair to bully a member for a flippant remark reflecting what someone else had said in more ways than one. To be frank, I've also been on the other side of your ire, and it was stressful -- he's continued to be pretty polite even though he's been barraged by personal attacks across several threads. I think Dan got slapped around enough in the other thread, leaping on him here for something relatively harmless doesn't help anyone.

If you can call out DanSC, I can call out you. Especially since this has impacted me before.

Eyebrock wrote:

Really, how so? It was from 2006 on another leader. Do tell me about it's relevance to Iggy and 'Just visiting'.

And Mustang is right. Danny boy has no clue about Canadian politics but picks fights with those of us who do.

I'll take any intelligent and well read input, left or right, but I'm not so fussed about people getting into the fray who have no clue about the topic.

I've already covered this, Eyebrock, but I did not receive a response from you on this topic either -- do I have no clue then? Zipperfish made the original comment, and he tossed out a flippant comic which represented that thought, one which we are continuing to discuss.

There are several posts discussing, from both sides, that line of anti-Americanism. The national past-time CKASlacker picked up on. Thanos on his revolutionaries making America. JJ on America's self bashing habit. It's not a topic which is irrelevant to this thread, I think it picks up on an ongoing habit of Canadians for some times -- with Harper it was Americanization, with Ignatieff it's the fact that he lived in and identified as an American. The entire topic of how Canadians respond to that is reflected in that cartoon, in my opinion.

[Mustang1]

Khar wrote:

I responded to your post because it was on an entirely different topic, and I don't think it's fair to bully a member for a flippant remark reflecting what someone else had said in more ways than one. To be frank, I've also been on the other side of your ire, and it was stressful -- he's continued to be pretty polite even though he's been barraged by personal attacks across several threads. I think Dan got slapped around enough in the other thread, leaping on him here for something relatively harmless doesn't help anyone.

Firstly, i didn't bully anyone - again, i noticed you failed to level this rather infantile label against others. Evidently you're targeting me - sorry, but if you want to stalk me or troll, then i'll respond in kind. Don't like it? I don't care, but each and every time you attack me, i'll kick it right back in kind.

Oh...and just because you can't remove yourself personally or emotionally from silly exchanges on an Internet forum is your hang-up, but since you've admitted that you hold juvenile grudges, i'll charge each and every attack as personal and the actions of some one who obviously can't handle these things with perspective. Maybe you need to take your social handicaps elsewhere.

Quote:

If you can call out DanSC, I can call out you. Especially since this has impacted me before.

[/quote]

That's between me and Dan, social misfit, but since you've hypocritically decided to attack me (while ignoring others that commit similar acts), maybe it's time to take a break.

Troll on.

[fifeboy]

andyt wrote:

.


I was in Colorado. The had a state senator who seriously believed that UN troops were massed in Saskatchewan ready to invade the US at a moments notice.

That was the rumour, but it turned out to be nothing more than the Notre Dame Hounds and a missing hockey travel bus.

[JJ]

OnTheIce wrote:

The NDP is pretty much irrelevent. But why? The answer is that the NDP came to prominence on medicare and labour reform. Those items have become part of the fabric of Canadian society. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives would contest those platforms any more. In other words, what was once NDP policy is presently generally accepted policy among all parties. Since Tommy Douglas' days, the Liberals have moved to the left and the Conservatives have moved even farther to the left. This has forced the NDP into becoming an "Issues Party" rather than one with any discernible political philosophy. The NDP has moved away from traditional socialist values and into the realm of gays' rights, environmental issues, pot legalization and a handful of other issues that are unrelated to its traditional politics. The NDP has become irrelevent because it has already succeeded in bringing its core values to Canadian society.
edits for spelling

I think that's a fantastic and very insightful analysis.

In BC we are currently having a primary for the leadership of the ruling provincial Liberal party, and as part of my job I got to interview all the candidates. And what was interesting to me was how their contempt for the NDP opposition was almost entirely non-ideological. Though some said the NDP was too anti-capitalist, most of them seemed to dismiss the NDP simply on the basis that it just wasn't a very serious party, and that it's support was drawn almost exclusively from public sector unions, which was a far too narrow base. Liberals are very much into this idea that their party is a "big tent" of diversity and acceptance, while viewing the NDP as a more petty, insular operation that either doesn't know how to appeal to anyone outside its hardcore base, or is too stupid to realize the political importance of doing so.

I'd describe the NDP as a sort of "wasted vote" party. I think a lot of its supporters are people who simply don't understand electoral politics seriously enough to grasp the concept that voting NDP is an act with almost zero consequence for the way the country is governed. Looking at some of the areas of my own province that are the most solidly NDP doesn't do a lot to dissuade me from that belief.

[Lemmy]

JJ wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

The NDP is pretty much irrelevent. But why? The answer is that the NDP came to prominence on medicare and labour reform. Those items have become part of the fabric of Canadian society. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives would contest those platforms any more. In other words, what was once NDP policy is presently generally accepted policy among all parties. Since Tommy Douglas' days, the Liberals have moved to the left and the Conservatives have moved even farther to the left. This has forced the NDP into becoming an "Issues Party" rather than one with any discernible political philosophy. The NDP has moved away from traditional socialist values and into the realm of gays' rights, environmental issues, pot legalization and a handful of other issues that are unrelated to its traditional politics. The NDP has become irrelevent because it has already succeeded in bringing its core values to Canadian society.
edits for spelling

I think that's a fantastic and very insightful analysis.

Me too. That OnTheIce dude is an insightful and articulate character, isn't he?.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Mustang1: It's a strip from the cartoon this forum is dedicated to. Thus, a Canadian of some local standing said it first. Bashing America doesn't refute it.

Too bad said cartoon is totally inaccurate. I've yet to hear anyone say they don't like the idea of elected senators or fixed election only because the Americans do it.

For example, a big part of the resistance towards an elected senate (or a Triple E one) is the loss of political power for smaller provinces (like those in the Maritimes) and the loss of power for larger provinces (like Quebec ad Ontario).

[JJ]

At the time I was responding to a comment by Scott Brison, a Liberal cabinet minister, who had explicitly described Harper's proposed Senate election plans as being excessively "American-style" in nature.

[Regina]

Stay on topic..........and no one gets hurt boys!

[Khar]

I'd have to agree with the folks who say that the attack ad direction being taken likely will have less of an effect than I originally thought. There always seems to be a subset who are persuaded by attack advertisements which focus on some specific aspect or another of a politician, but they are likely already leaning somewhat in the direction the ad was intended to take them. Otherwise, they would likewise disagree in the least or, at most, take offense to an attack on their leader. I have to admit, Harper's advertisements and the responses from the Liberals have not really swayed me either way, with the exception of it kind of being irritating that both of our major political parties decided to go for such tactics.

I do find it a little funny that this is a big wedge issue, but it's come up in the past. Our previous Governor-General had to give up his French citizenship, and Dion was put into the same seat as well after wards where he had to defend his dual citizenship with France. In fact, the latter spurred a rather long debate which went on for a few weeks before seeking into the later pages, and then disappearing entirely. It's not just Ignatieff, and it has happened before for with citizenship from another country, it seems most leaders which have openly kept or aligned themselves in some way with another country are going to be more suspect than your typical MPs because they are striving for leadership of Canada. A dual-citizenship Canadian leading parliament is not without precedent, but it is rare and hasn't occurred in some time.

It's kind of funny how so much of this mirrors what was being discussed in the summer, when there was those rash of articles which announced that we were going to be having a fall election. The only difference is that, at the time, the Liberals were focused on what was being described as an "election-campaign style" cross country trip, whereas this type they were being described as make campaign promises for campaign-esque press conferences. Well, and they also didn't leap so quickly to the attack advertisements. This time, though, the leaders seem a lot more interested in leaping into the election debate, and I'm not too sure I'm happy with that -- personally, I could go a little while longer without another election. Hence, I don't think that even though it's broadly accepted, we can say it's accepted from our highest ranking political figures -- a lot have come under fire for not affirming themselves as Canadian first, and it's not always been related to American citizenship, even though that has definitely been related to other stuff in Canada in the past (as has been mentioned previously, but we've been warned to stay closer on topic so I'll stop there )

EDIT BY MOD

This isn't how we get back on topic.........

[CKASlacker]

andyt wrote:

I was in Colorado. The had a state senator who seriously believed that UN troops were massed in Saskatchewan ready to invade the US at a moments notice. This was pre 911, so they needed to make up stuff to be paranoid about. But this is an elected official, who openly spouts this stuff ans is (re)elected.

What examples would you give for a left that is more extreme than in Canada? And relatively how many people follow this extreme left vs the extreme right?

Heh - I was just in Colorado last week for some skiing, so I'll give you my impressions:

I was in Boulder, which I thought was ridiculously left-wing. Organic food stores everywhere, "god-forbid-you-don't-drink-fair-trade-coffee", white people into all sorts of outdoor activities, people bike everywhere and in all seasons (and accompanying bike racks at every public place). I even saw a guy barefoot (in January!) on a skateboard. Basically, it struck me as very hippy-friendly. The only exception was that it was really expensive real-estate wise, but that's more to do with the local Boulder green-friendly policies (and thereby artificially limiting supply). Sure, there was a gun store, but then people are more outdoorsy, and there would be a demand for hunting and such equipment.

Denver I thought was pretty cool too. A little more multicultural, but still really clean. I didn't see any gun-toting nitwits running around, nor bible-thumpers at street corners. Even saw some Buddhist influences. Denver has a Hare-Krishna center with a free meal once a month (which my grad student friend was eager to take advantage of).

Basically I saw CO as a more lefty BC. So sorry, I just didn't see any radical nutbar, tea-party types. Maybe they exist in other areas of CO -- but that's diversity. There are gun-toting, bible-types in Canada too (mostly called Albertans).