Michael Ignatieff's baggage is getting heavier and heavier. His shoulders and head must ache.
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. He simply does not connect with the Canadian public. He spent most of his working life in an academic environment where he seemed to have been closer to neo-cons than to progressives. He supported the Iraq war at the onset. He supported torture and made statements to that effect in 2004. Since then, he has tried to retract but has he really changed?
He fully supported the Afghanistan war and he still does. If he becomes Prime Minister, would he ever pull out of Afghanistan? Does not look like it.
He was not elected leader but appointed by the Liberal caucus.
Then he gave unconditional support to the rogue government of Israel to carry on its recent slaughter in Gaza. He showed no sensitivity whatsoever to the plight, death and destruction of women, children and innocent citizens in Gaza.
Now he is propping up the Harper government only asking Harper to provide updates on his stimulus package every term. Sounds like a professor asking his students to submit their mid-term assignments.
This is also known as Dion syndrome, propping up the Harper government and rolling over on non-confidence motion after non-confidence motion. This should do Ignatieff in. There was a hope that if he worked with the NDP on the coalition he may actually learn something. That hope is gone. Michael Ignatieff is no leader.
Hyperbole mixed with conjecture is fun! Troll away, you crazy diamond. You do make several valid points to be sure, particularly surrounding his support for torture. But really:
ReplyDelete"If he becomes Prime Minister, would he ever pull out of Afghanistan? Does not look like it."
Pure baseless conjecture.
"He was not elected leader but appointed by the Liberal caucus."
The Liberals followed their constitutionally mandated procedure for electing a leader outside a convention. If you want to blame someone for the leadership mess, blame Dion, or Gerard Kennedy.
"Then he gave unconditional support to the rogue government of Israel to carry on its recent slaughter in Gaza."
Not even touching this hyperbole.
"propping up the Harper government and rolling over on non-confidence motion after non-confidence motion."
Confidence motions faced so far? 1. And he's not "rolling over" he is adding conditions that will be voted on in due time.
But I take it you would have preferred going to an election over this already-Liberal budget. That would have been fun to explain to Canadians. Either an election or a costly coalition government transition and further delay in stimulus.
Once again, I really didn't expect much from you, because you're basically a glorified troll that does nothing but stir the pot with asinine hyperbole and conjecture. Basically the Prog Blog equivalent of some of the worst Blogging Tories.
Trent, sir, talking about the hyperbole-that is what your comment is all about. Please explain what does the following mean:
ReplyDelete"To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."
Michael Ignatieff 2004. Awash with Bush dogma.
Rest of your hyperbole is just a hyperbole so it is not worthy of a response.
If you would re-read my post, you would see that I said explicitly:
ReplyDelete"You do make several valid points to be sure, particularly surrounding his support for torture."
But hey, don't let that stop you from completely missing the point of the rest of my post. Oh wait, you tried and failed:
"Rest of your hyperbole is just a hyperbole so it is not worthy of a response."
What? I think I can translate that for the rest of the readers:
WHARRGARBL
You didn't respond to my post because you don't want to have to admit you're a hyperbolic windbag who made a total ass out of himself posting baseless conjecture.
Trent, you sound exactly like neo-cons. When you have no argument then become abusive. You wrote:
ReplyDelete"Then he gave unconditional support to the rogue government of Israel to carry on its recent slaughter in Gaza."
“Not even touching this hyperbole.,"
Are you pro-slaughtering of innocent people?
If slaughter of women and children and destroying homes, schools, hospitals and infrastructure worth over billions is hyperbole to you then it says a lot about you. This shows how shallow and myopic you are. It is apparent you have no argument to put forward so you have resorted to being a jackass and started calling names. Typical neo-con tactics. I feel sorry for Iggy if you are his supporter.
Since you came on this blog and misbehaved, this is what I think you are:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bischoff.dk/images/butthead.jpg
"Are you pro-slaughtering of innocent people? "
ReplyDeleteThat's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. Insinuating I'm pro-slaughter borders on libel, but I'm not a douchebag like Ezra Levant, so I'll let it slide. I merely didn't want to get into an intractable discussion on the middle east, when there was so much else wrong with what you posted.
I'm not misbehaving, merely calling you on your total lack of logic and reasoning surrounding the topics you are discussing. Calling a spade a spade isn't "attacking" you, it's truth telling.
You still haven't responded to my original post. Are you suggesting the Liberals should have violated their party's constitution by using some alternative method of selecting a leader? How is that MORE valid than following the constitution (what they in fact did)?
" Are you suggesting the Liberals should have violated their party's constitution by using some alternative method of selecting a leader?"
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know all previous leaders were chosen through an election at a convention and not appointed by the caucus. May be you should give me few examples where caucus appointed a leader.
What you did was unprovoked verbal assault, which is an indictable offence. However, I am no Ezra Levant either to pursue any further such an immature behaviour on your part. You need supervision to be on the Internet.
May I suggest that you read your law books a little more carefully?
And he's not "rolling over" he is adding conditions that will be voted on in due time.
ReplyDeleteThese will be worded so vaguely that Harper will be happy.
"Then he gave unconditional support to the rogue government of Israel to carry on its recent slaughter in Gaza."
Not even touching this hyperbole.
You should. Because Iggy the Bloody has decided to suck the Isreali propaganda cock for a few religious votes in this country. So please, don't lecture us about "principles". Iggy would like sell his mother as a whore to marines for votes...
But I take it you would have preferred going to an election over this already-Liberal budget.
Election? Coalition first.
If this is a Liberal budget, why even put conditions on it? Really. I thought only connies used this specious pretzel-logic....
It's an awful budget that will fuck Canadians for years to come - congrats Iggy.
or a costly coalition government transition and further delay in stimulus.
It's not like the Conservatives have not called a useless election...
Stimulus? Corporate welfare more like it....
Insinuating I'm pro-slaughter borders on libel If it's true, it not libel - you are an idiot.
Are you suggesting the Liberals should have violated their party's constitution by using some alternative method of selecting a leader?
Iggy hijacked the Liberal party - something akin to Connie games. While Rae was pushing for the coalition Iggy was working on becoming leader. He's a calculating weasel.
Now that the crisis is over, do you think Iggy will actually want a leadership election or will he give the chimera of one.
Cherniak_WTF, thank you friend, well put. I was too polite. I asked the moron a question and it became a libel. Sounds like a friend of Ezra Levant and Cherniak.
ReplyDeleteIggy has insulted NDP openly by being patsy to Harper after all the agreements between Liberals, NDP; and assurance from BQ that the coalition government will not be brought down for 1 year and renewable. Iggy can never ask for their support again as he has violated the trust.
This Trent Anderson guy sounds like mental twin of Warren Kinsella.
LeDaro, I don't mind debate - and Trent Anderson, well he does seem like an Iggy fan...
ReplyDeleteHaha, have fun in your little nutbar far-left echo chamber you two. Your irrelevancy to modern politics is the only saving grace to the hyperbole and rhetoric of your stance. Nobody is listening, except to point and laugh. Well, maybe the NDP is listening, but yet again, irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteTrent Anderson, you're musing about yourself. Too bad no one is listening to you. My sympathies.
ReplyDeleteCWTF, you’re right he is an Iggy fan ….
Confidence motions faced so far? 1. And he's not "rolling over" he is adding conditions that will be voted on in due time.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some misguided notion that Iggy is keeping Harper on a short leash.
Now that Iggy has pissed off both the NDP and the BQ, how will he do that?
He can't without their support and he will not be getting it.
Go Iggy brain trust.... morons.
CWTF, you're right and my next post uses that theme - NDP and BQ will no longer co-operate with Liberals.
ReplyDelete