Mr Iggy has bound himself tight as a puppy’s a$$ in fly time as my Grandpa used to say.

Is it possible the business interests in China outweigh the lack of basic human rights in China for Ignatieff?

Very strange. How hard can it be for him to offer up a similar statement to that of PMSH’s ?

So much for the great human rights “advocate”.

Maybe he is celebrating the Canadian Thanksgiving……out of the country.
However it’s more likely that his puppetmasters are otherwise engaged and unavailable to prepare his canned position.

I mean, it’s all theatre, right Mr Iffy?

Funnily enough, I woke up with a thought about Ignatieff, what an improbable “leader” he is and what would have possessed the very challenged LPC to pick him, not eveb to vote him in as leader.

My mind began meandering into the LPC brain: he’s sort of famous, he’s silver-spoon pedigree, he’s “handsome” in a craggy sort of way, he’s an “intel-lechooal,” we may be able to pull the wool over the Canadian public’s eye just long enough to get him elected” …

That’s as far as I got. I realized I needed to get out of this labyrinth as fast as possible. I was suffocating. I couldn’t breathe.

Ignatieff is just a poseur, an imposter, a stand-in for the real thing. He’s no leader. He’s simply reading the LPC script about China, written by Mo-Hiding-out-in-Bejing Strong, the Shawinigan-Strangler Chretien, and No-Canadian-flags-for-my-ships Martin.

Funnily enough, I woke up with a thought about Ignatieff, what an improbable “leader” he is and what would have possessed the very challenged LPC to pick him, not eveb to vote him in as leader.

My mind began meandering into the LPC brain: he’s sort of famous, he’s silver-spoon pedigree, he’s “handsome” in a craggy sort of way, he’s an “intel-lechooal,” we may be able to pull the wool over the Canadian public’s eye just long enough to get him elected” …

That’s as far as I got. I realized I needed to get out of this labyrinth as fast as possible. I was suffocating. I couldn’t breathe.

Ignatieff is just a poseur, an imposter, a stand-in for the real thing. He’s no leader. He’s simply reading the LPC script about China, written by Mo-Hiding-out-in-Bejing Strong, the Shawinigan-Strangler Chretien, and No-Canadian-flags-for-my-ships Martin.

C’mon Bec, give Iggy a break, he needs one from his second grueling tour de farce, trying to convince “The Canadians” he’s one of them and can lead them to great things. On top of that he’s spouting off against Canada getting that temporary seat on the UN Security Council which he says we don’t deserve. Busy man, a true friend of Canada.

Wonder how he feels about Khadafi or Chavez? Remember he was smelling sulphur at one point, funny how that dissipated from the attention of the MSM, never to be mentioned again.

I think he may get a very long break from politics but at least he has been able to reconnect with his Canadian roots, his natal land, “one handshake, one baby at a time”.

Lets compare both statements and the ‘dates’ when announced. Also look out for ‘easy’ implimantion already issued by the conservatives but was ignored by the media purposely so that the liberals and coalition parties can use for themselves.

Jean Chretien, Maurice Strong and few others have businesses in China- strange, Ignatieff mentions nothing of it nor the media.

Ignatieff visited China, as a poor politician with no pension, but did he return from China a potential multi-millionaire if things went right for him and the Liberal party in Canada?

The Liberals still support the Kyoto Treaty which requires Canada to reduce it’s GHG to 7% below 1990 levels. This would require we reduce our total GHG emissions by some 30%, or mitigate it with the purchase of Billion$$$ Kyoto Carbon Credits from a country like China. The Dion-Iggy Green Shift Carbon Tax was intended to raise $50 Billion between 2008 and 2012 and just in time to resolve our 2012 Kyoto GHG target. No coincidence.

When the Conservatives were first elected, PM Harper declared “No Kyoto Carbon Credits for Canada!”. Immediately the Chinese denounce Canada and the Conservative gov’t … because they lost Billion$$$ in sales of Carbon Credits to Canada … and the financing of new Chinese coal-fired power plants being built and operated by Liberal-friendly Canadian companies in China … all courtesy of the beleaguered Canadian taxpayer.

Liberals have strong ties to China, witness Chretien and entrourage. Where is Maurice Strong these days? Lately we have heard that foreign governments are courting influence in Canada, gee is that China by chance? Lastly, I didn’t get to correct this on the Toronto Star website as some leftist shills shot me down, but China still is run by the CPC (Communist Party of China). I note this because they call themselves Communists, I don’t have to. Many leftist leaners were arguing that China was in fact not Communist but totalitarian… hmm really?

Liberals have strong ties to China, witness Chretien and entrourage. Where is Maurice Strong these days? Lately we have heard that foreign governments are courting influence in Canada, gee is that China by chance? Lastly, I didn’t get to correct this on the Toronto Star website as some leftist shills shot me down, but China still is run by the CPC (Communist Party of China). I note this because they call themselves Communists, I don’t have to. Many leftist leaners were arguing that China was in fact not Communist but totalitarian… hmm really?

Thanks for this, Observant. It explains everything: why Mo Strong is living in China (apart from the fact that if he returns to North America he has some questions to answer in the U.S. about the Oil for Food Scandal), and why Chretien and Martin are spending so much time there. I suspect that execs of a certain Quebec mega-corporation (rhymes with Sour) have been spending a lot of time there, too.

It’s no coincidence that all of these Liberal$ are hanging out in China, just waiting to make gazillion$. No wonder they’re out for Prime Minister Harper’s blood — and no wonder the MSM hate him so much. A lot of money was going to be made by a lot of people if the Liberal$ were still in power. PMSH and the CPC have scuppered all of their plans of cash for life — heck, cash for life for their kids and grandkids too, all at the expense of ordinary Canadians.

That’s what I absolutely can’t stand about the Liberal$: They look out only for themselves and their cronies, whether political, media, or corporate.

Isn’t it ironic that it’s always the Conservatives that are tarred and feathered with the “pro big business” brush? The Liberal$ couldn’t be more in bed with big business. They just like to pretend that their the party of the people.

What shysters.

This is O/T, but I believe it’s relevant to what is being talked about today, Oct. 12

Here’s something the Harper government should have played up, instead of focussing so much attention on Ignatieff’s “Canada doesn’t deserve a seat at the UN Security Council” silly remark:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,717489,00.html
09/16/2010

Dream of Influence

Germany Renews Campaign for UN Security Council Seat

By Ralf Neukirch

“… Next month Germany will attempt, once again, to secure a non-permanent seat for two years on the UN Security Council. For the first time, the German government will be up against two competitors, Canada and Portugal. Eight years ago, only two countries were vying for the two seats allocated to the so-called Western group, and the same situation applied eight years before that. …”

SOooo … that crap about Canada getting the seat because it deserved it then, but not now — of course, when the Liberals were in power — is just that, a load of crap.

Of course Canada got one of the two seats available back then! — There were only TWO countries vying for TWO seats, so it stands to reason Canada would get one of them.


By pointing this out, I don’t mean to disparage in any way Canada’s valued role at the UN, I hope that’s clear.


P.S. I’m posting this on a few conservative blogs, because I think it’s relevant to the discussion.


Forget Mo Strong, he’s small fish. It’s Powercorp-CITIC that is building and operating new Chinese power stations, and the coal is being transported by CSL conveyor vessels (two of which are built in Chinese shipyards) to power stations located inland on riverways. I trust you know who heads those Liberal-connected companies. Common knowledge.

Ironically, Total of France wants to heavily invest in the AB oil sands … and you should check out who has a controlling interest in Total (previously TotalFinaElf).

Observant, I know that Power Corporation and the Desmarais Family (with connections to Chretien whose daughter is married to Andre Desmarais) have a majority of shares in TotalFinaElf. But, isn’t Mo Strong one of their agents in China — and hasn’t he been one of their operatives for years?

I realize he’s just one guy, but he seems to have been rather key in most of their negotiations, whether at the UN or in China. ‘Not sure, though.

Observant, I know that Power Corporation and the Desmarais Family (with connections to Chretien whose daughter is married to Andre Desmarais) have a majority of shares in TotalFinaElf. But, isn’t Mo Strong one of their agents in China — and hasn’t he been one of their operatives for years?

I realize he’s just one guy, but he seems to have been rather key in most of their negotiations, whether at the UN or in China. ‘Not sure, though.

Considering this government’s failure to win a seat on the UN Security Council, I really don’t think that the CPC government is in a position to school Ignatieff on international relations.

We didn’t lose to Germany; with their size and clout, they were all but guaranteed a seat. We lost to Portugal.

(No disrespect to Portugal, btw. Great country, and Portuguese immigrants are an important part of Canada’s fabric .)

Kenn2, you’ve completely missed the point. It’s got nothing to do with which countries we were competing against.

The opposition has been harkening back to past glories, boasting how in times past Canada was always successful whenever it applied for a seat on the UN’s SC. Now, they point to this “failure” as the result of a failed foreign policy on the part of this Conservative government.

The reality is — as I pointed out in my previous comment — that if there are TWO seats available, and there are TWO applicants, and Canada happens to be one of those TWO applicants, then of course Canada would be one of the successful applicants — as in times past.

This time, however, there were THREE countries vying for TWO seats. So, this time, it wasn’t a slum dunk — or a mere formality — as it was in the past. This time, there was actual competition, and some deciding factors may indeed have been Canada’s change in foreign policy — for the better, IMO.

Confirming part of what I stated above, David Frum — yes, horrors! a conservative — writes;
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/david-frum-un-puts-the-blocs-to-canada/
“… The temporary Security Council seats are assigned to regional blocs. Five seats become available January 1, 2011. One of those seats is assigned to the African bloc. One is assigned to the Asian and Arab bloc, one to the Latin American and Caribbean bloc, and two to the bloc to which Canada belongs: Western Europe and Others.
Each of those regional blocs caucuses separately to determine whom it will nominate to fill its assigned seat.
The Africans nominated one candidate, South Africa, and it was duly elected. The Asians nominated one candidate, India, which was likewise duly elected. The Latin American and Caribbean group nominated one candidate, Colombia, again duly elected.
Noticing a pattern?
But the Western European and others group nominated not the requisite two candidates, but instead three: Germany and Portugal, as well as Canada. By nominating three, the Western European and Others bloc forfeited its right of decision. …”

Or maybe Canada lost out because, as John Ivison suggests:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/john-ivison-canada-didnt-pay-enough-for-un-votes/
“To win at the UN, you have to find honest ambassadors — that is, those who when they are bought, stay bought.”

You’re kidding, right, kenn2? Check out Lorne Gunter’s article today in the National Post : Nothing to be ashamed of, :

http://www.nationalpost.com/Nothing+ashamed/3661473/story.html

Pundits will moan that this is an international vote of no confidence in the Tories’ management of foreign affairs, a slap in the face to brave, plucky, multilateralist Canada who for years played the UN game of siding with despots and dictators, then sitting silently by while friends and allies were slagged, all in the hopes of winning the unofficial designation of “honest broker.”

But honest broker of what?

‘Nothing wrong with Canada’s international relations at the hands of the CPC and PMSH: We’ve challenged dictators’ and kleptocracies’ human rights records, we’ve supported Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and we’ve challenged the Islamist extremists: ‘no wonder we didn’t “make the cut” with the thugs in the UN.

I’m proud of Canada. Having attempted to gain a seat on the Security Council — maybe being able to make difference — but having failed to “gain” a seat, I hope we can flip the bird to the UN and say F-U: no more big-time support from Canada.

It’s got nothing to do with which countries we were competing against.

In the sense that the the awarding of those 2 seats would be the result of a vote, of course it was a “competition”, with competitors.

It’s a small foreign policy fail because it seems that Canada couldn’t convince the EU, or the rest of the world, that it was in their best interest to choose Canada over Portugal.

It’s got nothing to do with which countries we were competing against.

In the sense that the the awarding of those 2 seats would be the result of a vote, of course it was a “competition”, with competitors.

It’s a small foreign policy fail because it seems that Canada couldn’t convince the EU, or the rest of the world, that it was in their best interest to choose Canada over Portugal.

Uh, sorry, Gunter is not my go-to guy for foreign policy analysis.

I’m not going to call all of Harper’s foreign policy an epic fail, but it seems that he either has no desire or no skills in doing the fancier steps of the international dance, including the UN. Little bottles of maple syrup??

This is disappointing, unless you think that Canada can get along just fine without sitting with the grownups at the UN, not just seatwarming in the General Assembly. And maybe that the world doesn’t need Canada and our unique viewpoint.

…having failed to “gain” a seat, I hope we can flip the bird to the UN and say F-U: no more big-time support from Canada.

Ah. I guess you do.

“sitting with the grownups at the UN”

Please give me a break, kenn2. What grownups? I’m trying to post a comment about my own personal experience with the “grownups” at the UN. If these guys are grownups, then God have mercy on us all.

“sitting with the grownups at the UN”

Please give me a break, kenn2. What grownups? I’m trying to post a comment about my own personal experience with the “grownups” at the UN. If these guys are grownups, then God have mercy on us all.

Whatever you think of the UN, the world is no longer so big that a modern country can avoid engaging with it.

(your addendum came via email, so I’ve seen that post of your experience. Much as I sympathize, anecdotes are not data)

Two of my responses to you haven’t shown up here. Too bad. Maybe you’ve got my latest one by e-mail too. Whatever.

Kenn2, you are surprisingly obtuse on your reading of my comments here.

Bob Rae, Paul Dewar, Michael Ignatieff & many member of the intelligentsia in this country are bemoaning the fact Canada didn’t get a seat this time around, whereas in the past Canada did bask in the glory of the UN SC.

Well, it appears that former glory was very easily won, for the simple reason some of those competitions for the two seats available were uncontested races.

I am not disputing Portugal’s ability to garner support, nor disparaging whatever role it hopes to play at the SC. Good luck to Germany & Portugal in reforming the UN.

“your addendum came via email …”

I’m curious … how or why? I’m not trying to get personal, but was the “addendum via email” sent by Batb herself, or did you somehow manage to get access to it?

I thought email addresses were available only to the blog owner, i.e. Stephen Taylor. Am I wrong?

No, I did get your point (uncontested appointments in previous selections), and I think you’re playing it up for effect, to obscure the failure to get a seat this time.

Why, exactly was a 3rd country thrown into the mix forcing an election, and why did Canada lose out to Portugal? It seems clear that Canada was not viewed as a useful ally to the EU, and the rest of the world agreed that a small, pleasant, but heavily indebted EU country was a better choice than Canada. Why?

*koff* we’re now an American sock-puppet*koff*

Discus forum replies are emailed to the “replied-to” recipient upon submission. Some of batb’s prose triggered the moderation flag, so the posts didn’t appear til Mr Taylor was able to review and approve the posts. (and both are now displayed) . But of course the email went directly.

Hope that helps.

if you “subscribe” to the comments you receive the comments of others and you can respond to them via email. The email address is omitted and you reply directly to disqus.

The UN lost big time with it’s choice. Canada need not feel any great obligation to pass money through that ‘outfit’. In fact I would suggest they be ignored, they made their choice we can make ours. It’s not the Conservative way to bow at the shrine of the Left which is what I perceive the UN to be.

No doubt the Lib/Dipp/Bloc coalition will be celebrating, the Liberal leader said we weren’t worthy of the seat before they voted so for him it’s a win even though he’s slopping around in his flip-flops on the issue. Talk about a discombobulated professor! He needs an intensive course in basic politics.

wow, Liz, them grapes is really sour.

wow, Liz, them grapes is really sour.

Happy are you? Go join Iggy, he got his wish. He needed something to fly with on his dull and sparsely attended “Open Mike” farce.

He’s now pandering for votes among the Jewish people, saying he supports Israel.
Was he among the one’s attributing PM Harper’s unfailing support for Israel as the reason we lost that seat?

Has Ignatieff said what he would have done to “win” that seat? What “principles” would he have given up to some of those voting blocs to gain their favour?

Thanks to both you & Stephen for the explanation.

“I think you’re playing it up for effect, to obscure the failure to get a seat this time.”
Since you apparently have the key to the inner workings of my mind, can you please use that amazing power of long-distance perception to divine the results of tomorrow night’s LottoMax? Pretty please, transmit them to me … telepathically, of course.

“*koff* we’re now an American sock-puppet*koff*”
Quite the contrary, Dr. Watson.
http://richardgrenell.com/2010/10/susan-rice-snubs-canada/
“In fact, U.S. State Department insiders say that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice not only didn’t campaign for Canada’s election but instructed American diplomats to not get involved in the weeks leading up to the heated contest.  With no public American support, Canada lost its bid to serve.”

Who is Richard Grenell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Grenell
Yes, yes, a George Bush appointee … horrors! … who “became the longest serving American Spokesman at the UN in history, having served John Negroponte, John Danforth, John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad throughout the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration.”

The above is a reply to Kenny the twoth

‘Scuse me for having an opinion. Who’s being obtuse now?

What Grennell did or didn’t say/do has absolutely no bearing on whether the rest of the world perceives Canada as a unique and capable international presence, or as an echo-box for the US positions.

Canada didn’t effectively make the case for Canada.

I am impressed with the Liberal, Democrats agreeing with the despots in the UN that Germany and Portugal is more deserving than Canada.They will have defend their position in support of Mugabe, Chavez, Castro. I can’t wait!

I am impressed with the Liberal, Democrats agreeing with the despots in the UN that Germany and Portugal is more deserving than Canada.They will have defend their position in support of Mugabe, Chavez, Castro. I can’t wait!

Yep, that’s the tent they’ve gone into.

Yep, that’s the tent they’ve gone into.

No one is preventing you from having or expressing your opinion, but it would help if you were to express it without presuming to know what my real motivation or real intent is, “playing it up for effect, to obscure the failure to get a seat this time.”

I’m not going to bore you, or myself for that matter, by rehashing what I said in my initial post — suffice it to say it had nothing whatsoever to do with the perception of Canada abroad.

As for Canada being “an echo-box” of the US … is that why both Liberals & NDPers, now that Bush is gone, keep invoking Obama’s name as the template our PM should follow?
Ummm, I don’t think so.

suffice it to say it had nothing whatsoever to do with the perception of Canada abroad.

Exactly. That’s why carping on about what the Libs or others are saying about past selections is irrelevant.

…is that why both Liberals & NDPers, now that Bush is gone, keep invoking Obama’s name as the template our PM should follow?

… citation? (or are you just looking for a sweeping, dramatic, if unsupportable flourish to end on?)

As the defacto apologist for everything Liberals some of us feel compelled to correct your revisionist history and fairytale about the bright future of Liberalism.

The UN security seat is not NORMALLY contested. The deals are done in advance with concessions. We did NOT buy our seat with Maple Syrup trinkets.

We did not invite delegates to the Azores for a week. We did not give India a promise to vote a permanent Security seat. We did not give the 50 Pro Hamas-Fatah countries the Arab 2002 Plan to redraw Israel’s border.

We did not support the European-African Global Bank Tax (Robin Hood) to redistribute wealth.
We did demand developing countries submit to third party audit on their carbon emissions.

So Kenn2, we did not turn a blind eye to the despots, thugs like Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, Imadinnerjacket for “Win” as seat.

Should we have expected Europe/Africa/Asia voting blocs to vote for Canada without sweeteners? Maybe yes and maybe no.

The fact is this was a seat for Canada and not for Harper. Just like the Olympics it was Canada’s moment to shine not our Government.

Most Liberals can’t put their ideology behind our national interest. Some Liberals even believe they built Canada.

Fortunately most people I talk to are not that arrogant.

As the defacto apologist for everything Liberals some of us feel compelled to correct your revisionist history and fairytale about the bright future of Liberalism.

The UN security seat is not NORMALLY contested. The deals are done in advance with concessions. We did NOT buy our seat with Maple Syrup trinkets.

We did not invite delegates to the Azores for a week. We did not give India a promise to vote a permanent Security seat. We did not give the 50 Pro Hamas-Fatah countries the Arab 2002 Plan to redraw Israel’s border.

We did not support the European-African Global Bank Tax (Robin Hood) to redistribute wealth.
We did demand developing countries submit to third party audit on their carbon emissions.

So Kenn2, we did not turn a blind eye to the despots, thugs like Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, Imadinnerjacket for “Win” as seat.

Should we have expected Europe/Africa/Asia voting blocs to vote for Canada without sweeteners? Maybe yes and maybe no.

The fact is this was a seat for Canada and not for Harper. Just like the Olympics it was Canada’s moment to shine not our Government.

Most Liberals can’t put their ideology behind our national interest. Some Liberals even believe they built Canada.

Fortunately most people I talk to are not that arrogant.

As the defacto apologist for everything Liberals some of us feel compelled to correct your revisionist history and fairytale about the bright future of Liberalism.

I want you to know that I’ve never considered you to be the de facto apologist for everything Liberal. Or were you referring to me?

The fact is this was a seat for Canada and not for Harper. Just like the Olympics it was Canada’s moment to shine not our Government.

This is NOT like the Olympics, this is about how the sitting government sets and administers the foreign policy of this country.

This country sets and administers foreign policy through the wishes of the UN?
I did not know that, I thought we were a sovereign nation. This is a very worrisome bit of information you’re putting out kenn2. That we would be anything close to a puppet of the UN made up of some pretty unsavory people , dictators and despots.

You’re choice to be obtuse about Canadiansense making a point using the Olympics as another example where it’s not about the PM of the country, it’s about the country, is very cute and very condescending. We know better.

In your opinion you can separate our government from our country. That is convenient for you.

You think the current government is not legit and does not represent us. (I get it, Liberals are terrified any old white man in Alberta are going to destroy Canada)

Rational people don’t share the views of Liberals and fewer people will share in your “social justice” worldview at the next ballot.

2004, 2006, 2008, 2009 had a trend and one direction for Liberals. Can you feel it?

Don’t worry your party won’t be reduced to 2 seats. Remember John Turner?

“carping on about what the Libs or others are saying about past selections is irrelevant …”
Carping? Show me where I “carped” about what the Liberals said.
Not that I have to justify myself to you, but I’ve been quite vocal elsewhere about the Conservatives’ communications strategy, and blaming the outcome on Ignatieff was a communications failure, as far as I’m concerned. That bestows far more importance upon Ignatieff than he deserves.

If you’re referring to Grenell, Frum & Ivison, however, I believe those references are quite relevant, since particularly Grenell & Frum have worked in those UN circles … so you’ll understand why I give far more weight to their perspective than to your dismissive “Canada didn’t effectively make the case for Canada.”

“… citation? (or are you just looking for a sweeping, dramatic, if unsupportable flourish to end on?)”
Oh, no! not another commenter who demands links … but seldom provides any AND if they are provided, dismisses them as irrelevant, or as examples of conservative hacks.
No, I don’t need citations in this case. The “sweeping, dramatic flourish” is provided daily in Question Period, and I’m not in the mood to skim through Hansard.

you’re both… adorable.

Liz: This country sets and administers foreign policy through the wishes of the UN?

…what? I said the following (pronoun “this” replaced with full reference for those with reading, erm, challenges)

[issue of getting a seat on the UN security council] is about how the sitting government sets and administers the foreign policy of this country.

It’s only been the subject of this particular chain for the last… 12 comments.

can’t forget CD. You are in fine form today:
In your opinion you can separate our government from our country. That is convenient for you.

I have no idea what your point is. The sitting government sets and administers Canada’s foreign policy – yes or no?

You think the current government is not legit and does not represent us. (I get it, Liberals are terrified any old white man in Alberta are going to destroy Canada)

There’s no way anyone can construe that from what I’ve written (emphasis on what I’ve written, not the made-up taunts of the nefarious Lieberal goblins that inhabit your imagination)

To put the brakes on your delerium – yes, I actually think the current Harper government is legit, and is responsible for representing Canada to the world, PARTICULARLY in regards to foreign policy. That’s why this seat thing matters.

Carping? Show me where I “carped” about what the Liberals said.

…X-Squeeze me? I earned my first “obtuse” badge from you (“surprisingly obtuse”… quel honneur…) for not acknowledging your carping enough.

If you’re referring to Grenell, Frum & Ivison, however, I believe those references are quite relevant

… I agree with the relevance of Grenell’s info, but it too points out the current government’s failure to improve the rapport with our single largest trading partner and neighbour.

I mostly respect David Frum, but in this case his piece was mainly a coach’s lockerroom speech after losing a game.

Of course there were many outside factors in the loss of the seat. But many factors were in Harper’s control. Focusing on the outside factors while ignoring our government’s foreign policy is like an athlete blaming their loss to a distracting crowd, or the wind, or an elbow from the Swiss. Oops that’s an Olympic reference. Sorry.

Oh, no! not another commenter who demands links … but seldom provides any AND if they are provided, dismisses them as irrelevant, or as examples of conservative hacks.

… and out comes the BS.

I provide more links than just about anyone here, with the possible exception of CD. If we narrow the category to relevant links, I probably provide more than anyone. Ok, maybe not. But … I provide lotsa links. Do your homework, or don’t post the charge.

Those wishing not to have their links tagged as conservative hacks, should probably not link to conservative hacks.

Hey, Canadiansense, you replying to me???

I was replying to the apologist for the Liberals. He must be going through a great deal of pain lately.
The Polls this week have been brutal. The balance sheet and membership drop off in 2010 vs 2009 embarrassing.
Have you seen the financial state of the vacated ridings by the Liberals?

Both are under $ 12k , 11-13%.

Compared to CPC range $ 56k- 149k, 71%-146%

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2010/10/succession-planning-and-the-retiring-incumbent-mp/

I almost feel sorry for the Liberals. John Turner Part II (50 seats?)

It’s hard to feel sorry for a political party that won’t face up to their own problems and try to solve them before attempting to foist themselves on the public. I can’t feel any sympathy in this case.

Our government need a better opponent to challenge the government. Instead of substance we get endless political games. Ignatieff promised to not repeat the mistakes of Dion or sit on his hands.
He has failed to fix his organization making it competitive. He has failed to win trust or put forward any adult conversation. I have lost count how many lines in the sand he has drawn to only run away when a vote of confidence was available.

We need an effective opposition. No a party of props and political drive by smears.

“I earned my first “obtuse” badge …”
Oh, poor Kenny! Feeling unappreciated again? Geez, if I’d read someone writing something like “surprisingly obtuse” about me, I might have interpreted it as a compliment, albeit an indirect one …
The word “surprisingly” suggests you usually grasp quite readily someone’s comments. But you take it as a putdown instead. Oh well, if you enjoy wallowing in self-pity, go ahead.

As far as our foreign policy is concerned, actually, what you said two days ago (Oct 13) sums it all up: “it was in their best interest to choose Canada over Portugal.” There! Happy? I’m quoting you to validate my point!

Everyone in that UN room acted in their own self-interest:
• the Arab bloc probably voted against Canada because this PM is pro-Israel
• EU countries probably voted for Portugal because they want to enhance their own weight at the UN
• smaller eastern European countries probably voted for Portugal hoping to have its support in turn in their attempts to get into the EU
• underdeveloped countries probably voted against Canada because our government doesn’t believe in giving a blank cheque without some accountability
• some countries probably voted against Canada because our government believes in reforming the UN
• some countries probably voted against Canada because they don’t like maple syrup and would have preferred a paid holiday in an exotic location.
So, we should accept the verdict and move on, and continue to act according to our own Canadian values.

“I provide more links than just about anyone here …”
Kenn2, doing a Rodney Dangerfield? You’re getting whiny again.
I notice links only in discussions that interest me or that I participate in. I don’t go around counting how many links each participant provides — unless uncalled for demands are made upon me.

Totally disagree, the seat really doesn’t matter, we lost nothing. The reason being the Prime Minister, who Ignatieff refers to disrespectfully as “that Guy”, stood on his principles.

We support and trade with Israel, not a popular stand with many members
of the UN. Ignatieff also now says he supports Israel as well so what else was he going to give up to win favour if he were in the drivers seat since he’s trying to convey he could have done better?

Canada pulls more than her weight in aid around the globe, any Canadian or Canadian politician who would play this “seat thing” up for political gain should hang their heads in shame.

I wither like a salted slug in the full glare of your faultless logic. I must withdraw. Adieu.

Making whine from the sour grapes?

Sure, Kenny luv, go ahead, you have all the necessary ingredients for a steady supply of whine and the grapes of a bitter vetch. Enjoy!

Sure, Kenny luv, go ahead, you have all the necessary ingredients for a steady supply of whine and the grapes of a bitter vetch. Enjoy!