CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Forum rules


This is a Liberal Party forum meant for like-minded discussion, if you want to flame or debate in open, please use the main Canadian Politics forum.

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:58 am
 


I was at the convention, and of course, I voted for Iggy in all the ballots. But I was standing next to Iggy and Zhu when the candidates for round three were announced. We heard the names alphabetically, Dion (mild approval from the crowd.) and then Ignatieff, and a thunderous roar.

And we could not hear the next name or names, but Iggy turned to me: 'Did they say only one name?'

Well, I had not heard it either, the roar for Iggy was positively deafening, but I was also sure about there being one name, and that it was Bob Rae. I had already heard rumours from the Kennedy camp that Plan B was going into effect, and that Dion Quixote now had his Sancho pants Kennedy with him!

I am positive that Iggy did not anticipate it, his amazement was too genuine, as was Zhu's astonishment. I think we all three, me and they two, standing together by chance, realised that it was all pre planned.

When Joe, Ken and Scott went over to Rae, they could not take enough of their people to create momentum. But Kennedy and Martha did just that for Dion!

To call Kennedy a king maker is very superficial, because it was not Kennedy who achieved it but the unusual fact that 90% of his delegates crossed with him, propelling Stephane to the top of the chart.

Which brings out a startling fact. Voting blocks are now going to be a fact of life for the liberal party. So how can Stephane expect unity, when he was put in the seat by a mindless mob of sheep following its leader?

Why would any of the hopefuls work for Stephane to succeed, when it is more worthwile to build loyal followings and partisan blocks which can negotiate their way to the top?


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9862
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:16 pm
 


why because the Liberal party must unite to defeat the harper government. All the former leaders and candidates all seemed to express geniunly that they would.

I watched the whole event on 2 tv channels, I didnt notice an overwelhming roar for Iggnatief, was just loud to you because you were in the middle of Iggy supporters ;)

I hope Ignatieff runs in the next election, he is a great asset to the party and hopefully to our country.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:41 pm
 


In my opinion, Iggy was the best candidate. I wanted Hedy Fry to win but Iggy had the greatest potential and would have been the biggest challenger to Harper. I'd like to see him cross the floor because he's more like us than like you guys.

Here's another take on the convention.

Quote:
Idle attempt at gallantry triggered events that made Dion Liberal chief

MONTREAL (CP) - It seemed a harmless gesture to reward the lowliest candidate for a gallant campaign.

It may have changed the course of the Liberal leadership race, handing the crown to Stephane Dion.

Of all the sweaty palmed shakedowns, the not-so-secret pacts and the unseemly convention floor shoving matches, the most pivotal turned out to be a whimsical decision late Friday by a half dozen or so of Gerard Kennedy's ex-officio delegates to loan their support to last-place contender Martha Hall Findlay on the first ballot.

They felt confident Kennedy could spare a few votes and hoped they might be able to boost the lone female contender ahead of seventh-place Joe Volpe.

But those few votes made all the difference. Kennedy wound up slipping into fourth, just two votes behind Dion. The psychological impact of those paltry two votes on the 5,000 delegates turned out to be huge.

Dion was suddenly the guy with momentum, however slight, and Kennedy's campaign effectively stalled.

"You wonder how the momentum changes if Gerard had been in third rather than fourth place today," one Kennedy strategist mused shortly after Kennedy pulled out.

Liberal war-roomers had long predicted that the race for third would turn out to be the pivotal factor in the contest. If Kennedy had been in third once the four second-tier candidates dropped out, Dion would have been next off the ballot. He would never have gotten the chance to capitalize on his status as the most popular second choice for delegates in rival camps.

In that scenario, Kennedy likely would have ended up playing the kingmaker in a head-to-head battle between Ignatieff and Rae.

As it turned out, Dion edged past Kennedy on the first ballot and never looked back.

In a particularly cruel twist for Kennedy, Hall Findlay analysed the first-ballot results and determined that Dion's move up to third made him the contender with the most momentum. She called Dion from her hotel room early Saturday and offered him her support.

The two walked arm-in-arm into the convention hall, giving Dion yet another psychological boost just before delegates began lining up to cast their second ballots.

Dion later pointed to Hall Findlay's endorsement as one of the pivotal moments in the day.

"It was creating momentum," he said.

Kennedy strategists weren't the only ones left to contemplate all the what-ifs.

At a minimum, Ignatieff and Rae strategists had been counting on Kennedy to hang in at least until after the third ballot. His surprising decision to abandon the race immediately after the second vote and throw in his lot with Dion left their plans in tatters.

Had Kennedy lingered for one more ballot, the two front-running camps might have had time to strike a deal to stop Dion. By the time they realized what was happening, it was too late.

The Ignatieff and Rae camps had always had trouble believing that Kennedy and Dion would strike a pact, in which the first off the ballot would throw his support to the other. And even if they did, the front-runners felt sure neither could carry their delegates to the other.

Rae was caught on tape reacting to news Friday of a possible Dion-Kennedy deal. "I think we can blow it apart," he said.

Despite weeks of hype about Kennedy-Dion tete-a-tetes, the top two camps couldn't imagine how the lone Quebec contender could risk a deal that might require him to back a candidate whose French is flawed, who had no support in his home province and who had come out flatly against recognition of Quebec as a nation.

Rae was dumbfounded by Kennedy's swift endorsement. After telling his key supporters to "be modest in victory" at a 7 a.m. meeting before the second ballot, according to La Presse, Rae was so stunned by Kennedy's early move to Dion that "he shook uncontrollably for an hour."

Indeed, the optics were sufficiently bad that even after Kennedy crossed the floor to Dion, the two men continued to insist there had never been any deal.

"There was no agreement. I chose to go because I felt I couldn't win at that point," Kennedy told CBC television on Sunday.

But Kennedy advisers revealed that an agreement was effectively struck late Friday. Nothing was put in writing but there was finally a meeting of the minds and a sense that each genuinely thought the other would make the second-best choice for leader.

Their alliance was so securely sealed that Dion and Kennedy signed off on a jointly drafted opinion piece on Friday that was to be published Saturday in the Globe and Mail and La Presse.

The article was never published because it might have fuelled the perception of a backroom plot. Moreover, Kennedy was still competing with Dion for third place at that point and felt a joint article would send "very mixed messages" to his delegates.

For all the mutual understanding between the two contenders, insiders say there was never any agreement about the timing of Kennedy's move to Dion. He surprised even some Dion organizers when he threw in the towel after only the second ballot.

Once he realized his support had essentially stalled, Kennedy consulted in his box with his caucus supporters, a handful of key aides and his family. The scene was tumultuous, one insider said. Some advised Kennedy to hang in for one more ballot, to see if he could pick up a chunk of delegates from Ken Dryden, who had just withdrawn.

But, as one strategist put it, Kennedy ultimately decided he'd be taking "a big risk waiting one ballot too many." He walked to Dion and delivered most of his delegates, catapulting Dion from third to first place on the third ballot.

Dion later pointed to Kennedy's decision to pull out early as the decisive factor in his victory.

"I think it has been a courageous gesture from him, one of the most courageous gestures in this kind of race," he said, noting that contenders rarely pull out until they're forced out.

It was the Rae and Ignatieff camps who turned out to have waited one ballot too many.

Shortly before voting on the third ballot finished, some Ignatieff organizers tried to negotiate a deal with the Rae camp. Montreal MP Denis Coderre, Ignatieff's national campaign co-chair, made a direct appeal to the former NDP premier.

Coderre's pitch: the party would be finished in Quebec if Dion, the erstwhile unity minister and hardline scourge of separatists, won. He argued that Rae should throw his Quebec delegates to Ignatieff, or vice versa depending on the outcome of the third ballot.

Rae politely declined, telling Coderre: "I understand what you're saying but I think it's too late."

Indeed, insiders say Rae could not have directed his delegates to Ignatieff even had he wanted to. Ultimately, they flocked overwhelmingly to Dion.

Rae organizers contend that Ignatieff's Quebec delegates should have seen the writing on the wall after the second ballot, when Ignatieff's support grew only marginally. If if they'd moved at that point to Rae, Dion could have been short-circuited.

As it was, Rae was compelled to drop out after the third ballot. He did not endorse either Ignatieff or Dion and, in the interests of party unity, released his delegates to do as they pleased.

Ignatieff, who had dropped to second, actually headed out of his pen and started to walk towards Rae's box. His aides said he simply wanted to shake his old friend's hand.

The Rae camp took it as an inappropriate attempt to make it appear that Rae was endorsing his one-time university room mate. A scuffle ensued as Rae's organizers blocked some overly zealous Ignatieff supporters who were leading their candidate toward his rival's box.

On stage later, as Dion celebrated his stunning come-from-behind victory, Rae and Ignatieff finally gave each other what appeared to be a heartfelt, prolonged bear hug. But by then the cameras were no longer on either of them.

© The Canadian Press, 2006


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:47 am
 


Canadaka wrote:
why because the Liberal party must unite to defeat the harper government. All the former leaders and candidates all seemed to express geniunly that they would.

I watched the whole event on 2 tv channels, I didnt notice an overwelhming roar for Iggnatief, was just loud to you because you were in the middle of Iggy supporters ;)

I hope Ignatieff runs in the next election, he is a great asset to the party and hopefully to our country.
I am sorry but you cannot get the sound levels on the TV, they adjust the background noise so that their viewers can hear the proceedings. But for those in the crowd, there is no sound mixing equipment, only our ears.

Also, you may have missed the point, because I think my intention was clearly not to boast about the support. I do not have to do that, Iggy lost by just 220 votes, if you have checked the result. The mention of sound was just to bring out the feel of the moment, in that we could not hear the names after Iggy. The actual point is that whether we heard or not, we were puzzled about whether there was one name or two, and why one if only one.

Iggy has every intention of standing united behind Dion, and I support him for it. The question is not whether one should be a loyal liberal, but how the party will function from now on. Iggy will stand for re-election, and will have about a hundred times the campaign workers that he actually needs. But could he use his strength to build other less fortunate campaigns?

If he does so, should he not also use his strength to create a voting block of loyalists?We know that Iggy never worked to pick the other candidates, not one came to him. Iggy believed that the delegates could think and also the candidates.

How they moved, delegates and candidates, is interesting, with the sitting Parlimentarians going to Rae. Further, when Volpe, Brison and Dryden went over to Bob Rae, they had properly opinionated voters, who broke ranks and moved. We therefore know that none of the Rae camp candidates, had created factions. They supported their candidate, but were not a faction.

The seatless candidates Martha and Gerard, both went to Dion. We will not know about Dion, but Gerard and Martha certainly did create factions. Small groups of loyal fans, who vote at the dictates of their leader. The success of Dion, Findlay and Kennedy shows that henceforth, securing leadership will depend on blocks and factions.

It was educative to walk through the main hall and be approached by young people, many of whom looked like students, fervently asking you to vote for Dion or Kennedy. On Friday night, it was even amusing, as I was approached by three young men, one from the Kennedy camp and two from the Dion camp, all working in a group!

They wanted to know how I would vote when Michael bowed out. I did not have the arrogance to tell them that either Gerard or Kennedy would be down first thing in the morning, so I gently asked them to decide among themselves and suggest one candidate to me. It was amusing, as I said, to see the dawn of realisation on their faces that they would have to work against Iggy, doubtless, but immediately after that against each other!. That after they got Iggy down, they would have to choose one of their leaders. They were not just undecided, but really had not considered anything beyond the moment. So Gerard and Martha could deliver their sheep to the new shepherd, Dion.

From the analysis of the voting though, the strategy for the liberal party going forward would be quite different. Dion has just changed the destructive fighting as we had with Chretien and Martin, into a multi cornered street fight.

The message of Dion is clear. Create factions and special groups, and join each other without considering principles or platforms. It only matters that you win.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:55 am
 


I'm glad that Iggy is staying around for the moment. I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust him to work for Canada's best interest. I have nothing to base this on, other than a gut feeling.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:31 am
 


USCAdad wrote:
I'm glad that Iggy is staying around for the moment. I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust him to work for Canada's best interest. I have nothing to base this on, other than a gut feeling.
I think you would be a good example of the kind of delegate I just described. I presume that you were not a delegate, but you describe the type I talk of.

If you think that Iggy cannot be trusted to work for Canada, then you should not be wanting him to stay around! Why have people around you cannot trust? Find an nomination you can trust in his riding and send them your contribution.

I don't blame you, this confusion as I said is common. There were 5000 delegates to the convention, out of some 150,000 party members. But who checked out their knowledge of Liberalism, of Canada or of the world? No one. Many were people who had just joined, in the great member recruitment drive. Their names were put up during the Super Weekend. Not even one fifth had Dion as their choice. As their candidates fell, they were just stray puppies looking for a new master.

Iggy attracted the thinkers in the party, and unfortunately there were about People like you, who think that if Iggy held the coveted post of Professor at the prestigious Harvard University he cannot be trusted, have actually voted in Dion who is a french citizen!

Ask yourself: What gut feeling made you prefer a french poodle to a yankee doodle?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:05 am
 


Always: What did that vote cost? How much was it to attend and vote?
I agree with you on the trust issue. Iggy may not have a track record in Canadian politics but many people definately knew that Dion had dual citizenship. The media somehow missed that.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:38 am
 


ridenrain wrote:
Always: What did that vote cost? How much was it to attend and vote?
The fee was $995 to attend the convention. In addition I budgeted $360 on the hotel, and another $200 on food. Since I drove from Toronto, travel costs were, if you take the usual 25 cents a kilometre, perhaps about another 200. In addition, I gave a donation to the Iggy campaign, and also took time of business to volunteer at his campaign office. You could safely say the whole thing cost me $2500.
ridenrain wrote:
I agree with you on the trust issue. Iggy may not have a track record in Canadian politics but many people definately knew that Dion had dual citizenship. The media somehow missed that.
Well I don't think that USCAdad knew it, and although I was not allowed by Iggy to mention such things, I did some sample testing and I am sure that not many in the Dion camp knew about it.

They really had a rather weak understanding of the whole process. As we walked about after the first ballot, in our Iggy T shirt and our red scarf with 'ignatieff' written on it, we would be stopped by some bright young thing with a bright green Dion scarf. The question always was:

Question: How will you vote in the next round?

My answer: I will be voting for Iggy as long as he is standing.

Question: What about after he drops off?

My answer: I expect him to last till the last round.

Question: But just supposing he drops off...

My answer: Well, in that case, you would need to tell me who you expect to be in the last round.

Question: I expect Dion, of course.

My answer: Of course, but who else.

At this point, there was confusion in their minds. They were simple young people who had not looked beyond their candidate at all.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:00 am
 


We're not on the same political side but you get my admiration. Good to see someone standing up, and paying up for their political beliefs.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:38 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Iggy attracted the thinkers in the party, and unfortunately there were about People like you, who think that if Iggy held the coveted post of Professor at the prestigious Harvard University he cannot be trusted, have actually voted in Dion who is a french citizen!

Ask yourself: What gut feeling made you prefer a french poodle to a yankee doodle?


So the intelligent of the party think Dion is a poodle? I have nothing against Harvard as a research graduate institution. It's not a bad place. It wouldn't be my first choice for undergrad but I have nothing against Iggy for teaching there. Many professors are extremely smart but unable to function in the outside world.

Emerson was also touted as an intelligent individual. I believe he is. He also shares Iggy's political sense (very little).

So, why a dual citizen over globe trotting academic? First, I was not a delegate, I'm not even a Canadian citizen.... yet. My GF is Canadian. I'm against deep integration of Canada and the US. The little red and white ribbon on this site is one of the reasons I'm here. I have less fear that Dion is going to lead Canada into a death pact with France than Iggy would sell out Canadian sovereignty to International and US interests.

As far as keeping Iggy around. I think he is intelligent and it will be good to see him establish more of a track record working for Canada. If he does well enough with this over time, I'd be happy to dismiss my concerns. First, he's going to have to figure out which war crimes he's willing to lose sleep over.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:55 am
 


OMG what did he do? Where is he from?


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:06 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Iggy attracted the thinkers in the party, and unfortunately there were about People like you, who think that if Iggy held the coveted post of Professor at the prestigious Harvard University he cannot be trusted, have actually voted in Dion who is a french citizen!

Ask yourself: What gut feeling made you prefer a french poodle to a yankee doodle?
USCAdad wrote:
So the intelligent of the party think Dion is a poodle?
I think I have not been able to convey the rhetoric. Or perhaps english is not your strong point, but by comparing the status of Iggy with Dion, it should have been obvious that I do not think that Dion is a french poodle any more than that Iggy is a yankee doodle, and hopefully it is clear that I do not think the latter!
USCAdad wrote:
I have nothing against Harvard as a research graduate institution. It's not a bad place. It wouldn't be my first choice for undergrad but I have nothing against Iggy for teaching there.
Sorry, but you need to build a bit on communication skills, in addition to logic as mentioned earlier, before you can make it.
USCAdad wrote:
Many professors are extremely smart but unable to function in the outside world.

Emerson was also touted as an intelligent individual. I believe he is. He also shares Iggy's political sense (very little).

As far as keeping Iggy around. I think he is intelligent and it will be good to see him establish more of a track record working for Canada. If he does well enough with this over time, I'd be happy to dismiss my concerns. First, he's going to have to figure out which war crimes he's willing to lose sleep over.
So your problem is with his war crimes statement is it?

Well, some of us who HAVE been accepted at Harvard and such places are not so willing to dismiss Iggy for his war crimes statements. We think he was not only correct, but consistent. For those who missed them, the first statement was:

a. Iggy did not lose sleep over the Qana bombings, believing that the Isrealis were not deliberately targetting civilians.

And the second statement was:

b. Isreal's bombing of Qana should be examined for prosecution for war crimes.

While most Isrealis find this a reasonable stand, we have people, such as my present company, who worked strongly against Iggy for the latter statement. In their view, Isreal has so many enemies, that even opening the possibility of examination should be disastrous. Now, Iggy is just a candidate in a leadership race. He was honest enough not to delink himself from the Iraq war, and has voted for continuing in Afghanistan, and as we can see from the first statement, has backed Isreal. So he is three to one in favour of the US and Isreali policy in the area.

But prior to the second statement, there were a lot of anti liberal statments from Jewish groups. Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman withdrew their support and other jews moved over to the conservative party. They created as much trouble as they could. Iggy was faced with supporting a group which had deserted him or reducing the impact on the anti-US and definitely anti-Isreali lobby.

But even so, his second statement was only that the war crimes angle should be investigated, not that Isreal was a war criminal. While investigations are traumatic, they are not convictions and Isreal should, at least in theory, be able to demonstrate its innocence.

I have a great sympathy for Isreal, a lonely country in a UN with a large number of muslim countries, and also people willing to vote just to humiliate or isolate the US. However, I think this reaction from USCAdad is a poor example of the reason for not wanting Iggy! As illogical as the first example.

Unlike almost any contender for leadership, anywhere in the world, Iggy has a huge documented written record of his approach, the most outstanding being his book 'The Lesser Evil'. It was that book which changed the intellectual position of Liberals almost as much as did the other seminal book by John Gray 'Two Faces of Liberalism'.

Other leaders can back off and change their stand, but Iggy, being a published thinker, has to either recant or show consistency. So far he has not had to recant anything, and his 'Lesser Evil' is still the required reading in pol science and law courses. Ironically in Isreal, it is one of the most widely read books, and not just among pol science and law students!

Ironically, my friend, you would have realised that if your ambitions had materialised!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:22 am
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
At this point, there was confusion in their minds. They were simple young people who had not looked beyond their candidate at all.
lily wrote:
Who was your 2nd choice?
Good question, lily, and there is an irony in it! Let me explain, though I have a trouble with long postings, and I hope I am not boring you guys!

How did the candidates divide?

Academics: Ignatieff and, as USCAdad did not perhaps realise, Dion!

Members of Parliament: All except Bob Rae, Gerard Kennedy and Martha HF.

Definitely not opportunists: All except Rae (came from NDP after a political collapse, he started with 72 seats and Premiership of Ontario for NDP and ended with 14 seats) Dion, with only 9 years of experience, and Ignatieff.

So in theory, if Iggy went down, and it was because of perceived inexperience, I would have to crop out ALL the other candidates, except Brison, Dryden and Volpe!

My second choice was Dryden, because he showed the greatest maturity, statesmanship and intellect. My third choice was Kennedy, who misunderstood the situation. The voting shows that fate had given him Michael's crown and he just did not have the inner conviction that he would make it, and he sold it at a discount to Dion!


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1550
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:56 pm
 


Always4Iggy wrote:
Always4Iggy wrote:
Iggy attracted the thinkers in the party, and unfortunately there were about People like you, who think that if Iggy held the coveted post of Professor at the prestigious Harvard University he cannot be trusted, have actually voted in Dion who is a french citizen!

Ask yourself: What gut feeling made you prefer a french poodle to a yankee doodle?
USCAdad wrote:
So the intelligent of the party think Dion is a poodle?
I think I have not been able to convey the rhetoric. Or perhaps english is not your strong point, but by comparing the status of Iggy with Dion, it should have been obvious that I do not think that Dion is a french poodle any more than that Iggy is a yankee doodle, and hopefully it is clear that I do not think the latter!


No, it's quite obvious that you had a strong preference for Iggy, that you think to some degree he lost because of anti-egg-head sentiments, and that truly intelligent people would have voted for Iggy.

Quote:
USCAdad wrote:
I have nothing against Harvard as a research graduate institution. It's not a bad place. It wouldn't be my first choice for undergrad but I have nothing against Iggy for teaching there.
Sorry, but you need to build a bit on communication skills, in addition to logic as mentioned earlier, before you can make it.


Before I can make it? Make it where? I'm sure I could improve my communication skills. Logic? I studied philosophy.
Quote:
USCAdad wrote:
Many professors are extremely smart but unable to function in the outside world.

Emerson was also touted as an intelligent individual. I believe he is. He also shares Iggy's political sense (very little).

As far as keeping Iggy around. I think he is intelligent and it will be good to see him establish more of a track record working for Canada. If he does well enough with this over time, I'd be happy to dismiss my concerns. First, he's going to have to figure out which war crimes he's willing to lose sleep over.
So your problem is with his war crimes statement is it?


Well, to some degree, it doesn't matter how well one does in the Ivory tower, foot in mouth disease can have problems in politics. My "problem" with Iggy is that I was concerned he'd be to much of an internationalist and not prioritize Canada. Is Dion any better? I don't know. I'm a Yank conservative, not a Canadian Liberal. I have an interest in Canadian politics but don't have a lifetime of familiarity with all the political history or numerous players in all of the parties.

Quote:
Well, some of us who HAVE been accepted at Harvard and such places are not so willing to dismiss Iggy for his war crimes statements.... Ironically, my friend, you would have realised that if your ambitions had materialised!

I can only assume you go to Harvard, you think that's something special, and that some how I missed my hearts desire by not going there. Harvard is a good school, in particular it has some very good graduate programs. However, I don't find Harvard undergrad that impressive. I went to Reed and would have more respect for Swarthmore or Pomona for undergrad.... sorry to pop your bubble. When I was thinking about going to grad school Princeton and Berkeley were my top choices, Harvard wasn't even on my list. Eventually I decided to go to the mountains vs. grad school but that was not a frustrated ambition.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1170
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:50 am
 


USCAdad wrote:
Logic? I studied philosophy.


USCAdad wrote:
I don't find Harvard undergrad that impressive. I went to Reed and would have more respect for Swarthmore or Pomona for undergrad.... sorry to pop your bubble. When I was thinking about going to grad school Princeton and Berkeley were my top choices, Harvard wasn't even on my list. Eventually I decided to go to the mountains vs. grad school but that was not a frustrated ambition.
Well, it is interesting that your online persona is that of an American dipping into Canadian affairs, and that to an American who studied philosophy and that too at Reed! But whatever diplomas you flash, my friend, you still have to present a logical front. I think it was Lucian Baggini, the popular philosopher whose opening line was:
Quote:
Philosophers have a habit of finding something we think we all know and then providing reasons for making us doubt we know it after all.
Simply stated, it means that philosophers have a way of reaching through the surface of our reasoning and bringing us in touch with our gut reactions. It is interesting therefore that in this case, it is a non philosophy person, namely me, who is doing it to a philosophy person, namely you.

The inconsistencies are building in your case, my friend!

First inconsistency:
USCAdad wrote:
I'm glad that Iggy is staying around for the moment.
USCAdad wrote:
I'm also glad he didn't win the nomination. I don't trust (iggy) to work for Canada's best interest.
This is an inconsistency on your part. Please, as a professed philosopher, help us to understand it.

Second inconsistency:
USCAdad wrote:
My "problem" with Iggy is that I was concerned he'd be to much of an internationalist and not prioritize Canada.
USCAdad wrote:
First, he's going to have to figure out which war crimes he's willing to lose sleep over.
Now I have trouble with this, and I hope others here also do. The trouble more than one way.

First of all, for someone who claims to be US-American, it is unusual for you to speak from a deeply canadian focus and find it troubling. This is more consistent with a person who is actually ordinary canadian posing as a US-American.

Second, while not trusting him to take a Canadian view, rather than an internationalist view, your first example is that of the war crimes affair.

Be that as it may, it gives us an opportunity, as Baggini said, to be armchair philosophers and reach within you to find the real person. So can you, as a Reeds person and philosopher by training, tell us what YOUR opinion is on the topic of the Qana massacre.

And as important as WHAT your opinion is, use your philosophy training and tell us WHY that opinion is more important. Remember, to get you started, I have already presented the view of Iggy supporters, which is as follows:
Quote:
Well, some of us... are not so willing to dismiss Iggy for his war crimes statements. We think he was not only correct, but consistent. For those who missed them, the first statement was:

a. Iggy did not lose sleep over the Qana bombings, believing that the Isrealis were not deliberately targetting civilians.

And the second statement was:

b. Isreal's bombing of Qana should be examined for prosecution for war crimes.

Iggy is just a candidate in a leadership race. He was honest enough not to delink himself from the Iraq war, and has voted for continuing in Afghanistan, and as we can see from the first statement, has backed Isreal. So he is three to one in favour of the US and Isreali policy in the area.

But even so, his second statement was only that the war crimes angle should be investigated, not that Isreal was a war criminal. While investigations are traumatic, they are not convictions and Isreal should, at least in theory, be able to demonstrate its innocence.

I have a great sympathy for Isreal, a lonely country in a UN with a large number of muslim countries, and also people willing to vote just to humiliate or isolate the US. However, I think this reaction from USCAdad is a poor example of the reason for not wanting Iggy! As illogical as the first example.
So tell us why Iggy what Iggy said which was wrong and why you think so.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.