The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is the first time I have heard Michael Ignatieff speak more than few words.

He dances very well. His credentials are incredible. He really did get the crowd going.

Rae took a play out of the Bill Clinton book and was the only candidate to speak without a tele-prompter. He did well, but seemed to go into brief trances, like his brain (an admittedly big one) was stuck.


Kennedy was good, but outclassed by the front runners.

Dion doesn't "present well" and misclculated on the length of his speech. He was cut off with a couple of crucial points left to make. He was clearly disapointed.

Ken Dryden spoke well also, but of course is not really a contender.




The best speach of the night in my opinion was Ignatieff. He has a spark.




Tomorrow will be interesting. It's anybody's to win.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Well it looks like we have another Quebecer as head of the Liberal Party since Dion won the leadership.

I couldn't really be bothered to watch the convention since I couldn't identify with any of the candidates.
In every interview I've seen and heard, Ignatieff has come across as arrogant and condescending.

I don't think it really matters who wins, we're going into another election where the canadian people are voting someone out instead of voting someone in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
I can't believe that Dion won, but I'm glad he did. Rae just had too much baggage in Ontario for my tastes and Ignatieff really annoyed me. He's lived in the US for too long for me to take him seriously. What has he done for Canada?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Well based on the speeches I was hoping Ignatieff would win. I don't care that he's lived outside of Canada for a period. He's the smartest one of the bunch and frankly they all have impressive credentials.

I hope Dion has what it takes to boot Harper and the neo cons out of power before they do any more damage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
635 Posts
Milkman said:
I hope Dion has what it takes to boot Harper and the neo cons out of power before they do any more damage.
Me too. I think it's great that Dion is so into environmental issues. Hopefully he'll be able to counter some of the bad moves that the conservatives have made in that area. I think it's shameful how they've decided not to take any action and am tired of hearing people say stuff like "Oh, well China pollutes way more than we do!". Who freakin' cares? It's about us taking responsibility for our pollution, not deciding that we're off the hook because someone pollutes more than we do.

Anyway, Dion seems like a feisty dude, which is cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
hoser said:
I don't think it really matters who wins, we're going into another election where the canadian people are voting someone out instead of voting someone in.
...good point. unfortunately, i think its simply the fact that good leaders are very, very rare.

if only harper was a liberal! i disagree with much of his policies, but i think he is a strong "leader".

i'm relieved that neither ignatief nor rae won. they simply have too much baggage, and would have been sitting ducks for the conservatives in the next election.

kennedy may be the guy to watch, further down the road.

in the short term, i think dion will prove to be a good choice.

-dh
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
hoser said:
Well it looks like we have another Quebecer as head of the Liberal Party since Dion won the leadership.

I couldn't really be bothered to watch the convention since I couldn't identify with any of the candidates.
In every interview I've seen and heard, Ignatieff has come across as arrogant and condescending.

I don't think it really matters who wins, we're going into another election where the canadian people are voting someone out instead of voting someone in.

It matters to me and I for one will be voting FOR the Liberals as much as against the reformers.

As for Ignatieff, if I had a brain like his it might be difficult to relate to the average person. I suppose you could say the same for Rae.


Anyway, even if Canadians DO vote against Harper, that's fine. Better late than never.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Accept2 said:
I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........

While you could argue that there may not be "much difference" between the big parties in terms of their mechanisms and bad habits, surely you can see that one party is very right while the other is just left of center.

There are clear differences to me. I want Canada to move forward not backward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Dion IMO has half of what it takes to move Canada forward; he's a dedicated politician, he knows his stuff and so on. But as you stated in your opening of this thread Milkman, he does not "present well".

His problem is the language barrier. You not only learn a language, you learn a culture. He CAN speak English (somewhat) but he lacks the wherewithals of the English culture which is the majority for this country and is a major asset for a leader on the global political arena. It takes away some of his credibility and may prevent him from being influencial on world's major issues. And he looks a little goofy too.

I could see him as a cabinet minister assigned to an important portfolio but I'm blown away that they chose him as a leader. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
Accept2 said:
I prefer the Libertarian party. The big parties have ****ed us over for too long. There's not much difference between the big parties, its time to evolve. I also like that there is no flip flopping with the Libertarians, all decisions are based on their rules of principle........

...which are?

my impression of libertarian principles from chatting with americans is that's kind of an every man for himself, survival of the fittest kind of non-government party.

-dh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,113 Posts
If Ignatief's so smart why can't he get his foot out of his mouth?
I was rooting for Kennedy, but Dion seems all right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
"You say tomato..."

david henman said:
...which are?

my impression of libertarian principles from chatting with americans is that's kind of an every man for himself, survival of the fittest kind of non-government party.

-dh
This is where the confusion always starts, David. History books and dictionaries may have one definition of a word but common usage quite another. Even worse, what's common usuage in one region may be something very different in another. If you're not careful to be very precise folks may completely misunderstand your meaning.

It's like how every few years someone will pop up in the media suggesting that because English has some illogical spellings we should standardize all spelling phonetically. This is obviously ridiculous. Whose phonetics should we use? Texan? Newfie? (The last is my choice!) it never occurs to such people that to someone else it's THEM who has an accent!

American survivalists stole the word "libertarian" as an emotional drape to their philosophies of shotguns, bunkers and anti-Washington. Nothing at all to do with the Libertarian Party. It's like how the meaning of "gay" has been hijacked.

Libertarians are actually closer in philosophy to the classic definition of a Liberal. That is: rights of the individual, less government meddling, the right of a citizen to expect protection of his life and property...with equal emphasis on responsibilities of being a citizen in a society.

Of course, the modern Liberal party hasn't practiced such views in decades if you read by its actions. Neither have the other parties been true to the dictionary. It's all about wearing a different jersey but the team is often very much the same - opportunistic and pragmatic about how to get votes. The NDP tends to hold more to their principles but unfortunately their principles tend to be more emotional than practical. You know: "no child should go hungry" but very weak on how this can be practically accomplished. No wonder the Greens are finding it easy to usurp the NDP on issues like the environment and sustainability.

If you believe that modern Liberals still cherish the rights of individuals then go spend a night in Caledonia. You can't fly a Canadian flag too close to the native protestors without being charged but a kilometre and a half away a native can steal a flag in full view of several OPP cruisers without an officer even getting out of his vehicle.

I feel much in common with the Libertarian Party but have never felt them to be a practical alternative. Up till now they've tended to be made up mostly of academic types who debate over old philosophy books and don't really understand how to become a serious contending party. Manning started a new party and although it may not of been your cup of tea it garnered MILLIONS of votes astonishly quickly! When Dion stands before a camera and says that the values of the Liberal Party are the same as the overwhelming majority of Canadians I'm poleaxed by the arrogance. He's essentially saying that if you don't agree with his party then you are un-Canadian. What God gave him the rock tablets on the mountaintop?

We seem to have gotten away from the old hippie belief that everyone is entitled to their opinions and views as long as they respect those of others. I've been sadly dismayed for years about how when I talk with many Liberal and NDP folks they take as an article of faith that if you vote differently then you must be evil or at least, very uneducated and misinformed. I never get solid reasons in the argument. Just emotional jingoism.

Anyhow, just FYI on defining Canadian Libertarians.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Mahogany Martin said:
Dion IMO has half of what it takes to move Canada forward; he's a dedicated politician, he knows his stuff and so on. But as you stated in your opening of this thread Milkman, he does not "present well".

His problem is the language barrier. You not only learn a language, you learn a culture. He CAN speak English (somewhat) but he lacks the wherewithals of the English culture which is the majority for this country and is a major asset for a leader on the global political arena. It takes away some of his credibility and may prevent him from being influencial on world's major issues. And he looks a little goofy too.

I could see him as a cabinet minister assigned to an important portfolio but I'm blown away that they chose him as a leader. :eek:

Well frankly not presenting well and not speaking English smoothly didn't seem to hinder Cretien's success and I doubt it will impact Dion too much either. Prersonally I liked Kennedy and Ignatieff but I have no real problem with Dion.

Harper is the poster child for goofy so I think it's a wash.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
Goofy?

Milkman said:
Well frankly not presenting well and not speaking English smoothly didn't seem to hinder Cretien's success and I doubt it will impact Dion too much either. Prersonally I liked Kennedy and Ignatieff but I have no real problem with Dion.

Harper is the poster child for goofy so I think it's a wash.
"Goofy"? Well, he is a politician, after all. At least he doesn't talk to imaginary homeless people in imaginary bars, like Chretien. Or see burning crosses on lawns all over a riding, like Hedy Fry in B.C.

Dion thinks the way to reduce greenhouse gases is to buy emission credits from third world countries, with no thought of an accountability mechanism to be sure the money goes on anti-pollution measures and not on guns and/or nuclear weapons programs instead. It wouldn't surprise me that if he was ever in power he would buy emission credits from the rulers of Sudan, enabling them to kill a few more thousands in Darfur. Not because he has no heart but because he'd never think of checking out what happens after he buys those credits. He's a university prof, for cripes sakes! By definition he's an academic, with a highly intelligent grasp of his "book-learning" and little or no "hands-on" background. It's like the old definition of an engineer and a technician. The first has a vision that something could work but it's the tech who makes it possible in the real world. Think I'm exaggerating? Go read the Kyoto Accord for yourself.

At least Harper wants to actually reduce our OWN emissions, which is more than Dion's party can claim. His timetable is a little long but the claim that his bill does nothing until 2050 is an out and out lie. Anyone can read the Bill for themselves. Reporters would rather twist the truth to sell more papers and the people that don't like Harper in the first place are the LAST people that would want to read the Bill for themselves! Much more fun to jump on that 2050 date. I defy anyone to come up with any math that showed that under Dion's watch we had any hope of even coming close to our promises without either shutting down over half of our industry or spending billions on "foreign aid" emissions "credits. One and one makes two and not three, no matter what your politics.

I'm not defending Harper. He's my choice only because he smells the least, to my nose. You're entitled to your faith in Liberal choices but before they'd get my vote they'll have to do a lot better than offering to make me feel warm, fuzzy and perhaps a little snobbishly superior.

It might surprise you but I'm looking more and more to the Greens. They still have too many artsies with opinions on scientific issues when they couldn't put a new plug on a lamp but more and more they're attracting people from practical backgrounds. In another election or two things could get interesting, especially for the NDP. Those poor folks have never attracted rocket scientists and seem incapable of ever evolving with the times. Their own Jim Laxer gave a report over 20 years ago pointing out how they had become dinosaurs and had better get with it. They totally ignored him and cheerfully went out to ride bicycles in winter snowstorms, saving the unborn baby whales from nuclear proliferation and drunk drivers, enabling the whales to grow up to eat all the baby seals they could want without all that stress that made them release atmospheric amounts of methane...

If the NDP doesn't wake up and smell the coffee the Greens are going to eat them for breakfast...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
Wild Bill said:
This is where the confusion always starts, David. History books and dictionaries may have one definition of a word but common usage quite another. Even worse, what's common usuage in one region may be something very different in another. If you're not careful to be very precise folks may completely misunderstand your meaning.

It's like how every few years someone will pop up in the media suggesting that because English has some illogical spellings we should standardize all spelling phonetically. This is obviously ridiculous. Whose phonetics should we use? Texan? Newfie? (The last is my choice!) it never occurs to such people that to someone else it's THEM who has an accent!

American survivalists stole the word "libertarian" as an emotional drape to their philosophies of shotguns, bunkers and anti-Washington. Nothing at all to do with the Libertarian Party. It's like how the meaning of "gay" has been hijacked.

Libertarians are actually closer in philosophy to the classic definition of a Liberal. That is: rights of the individual, less government meddling, the right of a citizen to expect protection of his life and property...with equal emphasis on responsibilities of being a citizen in a society.

Of course, the modern Liberal party hasn't practiced such views in decades if you read by its actions. Neither have the other parties been true to the dictionary. It's all about wearing a different jersey but the team is often very much the same - opportunistic and pragmatic about how to get votes. The NDP tends to hold more to their principles but unfortunately their principles tend to be more emotional than practical. You know: "no child should go hungry" but very weak on how this can be practically accomplished. No wonder the Greens are finding it easy to usurp the NDP on issues like the environment and sustainability.

If you believe that modern Liberals still cherish the rights of individuals then go spend a night in Caledonia. You can't fly a Canadian flag too close to the native protestors without being charged but a kilometre and a half away a native can steal a flag in full view of several OPP cruisers without an officer even getting out of his vehicle.

I feel much in common with the Libertarian Party but have never felt them to be a practical alternative. Up till now they've tended to be made up mostly of academic types who debate over old philosophy books and don't really understand how to become a serious contending party. Manning started a new party and although it may not of been your cup of tea it garnered MILLIONS of votes astonishly quickly! When Dion stands before a camera and says that the values of the Liberal Party are the same as the overwhelming majority of Canadians I'm poleaxed by the arrogance. He's essentially saying that if you don't agree with his party then you are un-Canadian. What God gave him the rock tablets on the mountaintop?

We seem to have gotten away from the old hippie belief that everyone is entitled to their opinions and views as long as they respect those of others. I've been sadly dismayed for years about how when I talk with many Liberal and NDP folks they take as an article of faith that if you vote differently then you must be evil or at least, very uneducated and misinformed. I never get solid reasons in the argument. Just emotional jingoism.

Anyhow, just FYI on defining Canadian Libertarians.
...thanks, bill. i agree that liberal policies too often end up as feel good legislations.

although i despise what conservative politics has become, especially in the USA where its all moral hypocrisy and hate and enemies and evil, i am finding more and more that i like the essence of conservative politics, IF they were turned upside down. in other words, sure, lets make it every man for himself, survival of the fittest, but ONLY after we have levelled the playing field and provided free education and health care for every individual.

i also believe in individual accountability: YOU make a mess, YOU clean it up. you father a child, that child is your responsibility in every aspect until it is of legal age and self supporting. you, as a civil servant, squander tax dollars on a carribean vacation, you pay back every penny. you steal a car and cause $100,000 damages, that debt follows you to your grave and then gets passed on to your children. you run a stop sign and t-bone a car killing family members, you are CRIMINALLY responsible.

etc...

-dh
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
david henman said:
you steal a car and cause $100,000 damages, that debt follows you to your grave and then gets passed on to your children.
etc...



-dh

Wow David. I wouldn't expect this from you. Sins of the father eh?


I will support any party who wants to support same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, PEACE and which has a hope of winning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,665 Posts
"Son of a gun!"

david henman said:
...thanks, bill. i agree that liberal policies too often end up as feel good legislations.

although i despise what conservative politics has become, especially in the USA where its all moral hypocrisy and hate and enemies and evil, i am finding more and more that i like the essence of conservative politics, IF they were turned upside down. in other words, sure, lets make it every man for himself, survival of the fittest, but ONLY after we have levelled the playing field and provided free education and health care for every individual.

i also believe in individual accountability: YOU make a mess, YOU clean it up. you father a child, that child is your responsibility in every aspect until it is of legal age and self supporting. you, as a civil servant, squander tax dollars on a carribean vacation, you pay back every penny. you steal a car and cause $100,000 damages, that debt follows you to your grave and then gets passed on to your children. you run a stop sign and t-bone a car killing family members, you are CRIMINALLY responsible.

etc...

-dh
Geez louise, David! You're 90% a Libertarian! :)

I agree with you about the corruption of the American conservative movement. Sadly, when conservative politicians down there were looking for a power base that was up for grabs they decided to appeal to the religious right and the social "conservatives". These are people who believe that first of all they are the "silent majority" and second that they have not just a right but an obligation to pass laws and hire cops to force people to live as the social "conservatives" feel is proper.

This is just about as bad as many liberals who believe that people should have the freedom to do whatever they wish with their lives - as long as it's a choice of the liberal trendy persuasion. It's like when there was all that controversy about some cartoons that offended radical muslims. By our society's standards this was a freedom of speech issue. We saw many liberal talking heads on the telly who said that of course we had freedom of speech but if it might offend someone we should not be allowed to express it! So essentially you have freedom of speech as long as everyone approves...

I guess there's a streak of human nature that just loves to tell their neighbour what to do. Ever spend some time with a militant anti-smoker? Or a true "bible thumper"? Given a chance, these types will cheerfully enact lifestyle laws for "your own good".

You describe civic responsibility, but sadly today we have a situation where NO ONE is ever responsible. It's society's fault, our ancestors' fault, bad upbringing (but the specific parents themselves are NOT to blame!) - always someone else but never YOU!

There's an old story about a pair of twin boys who had an abusive, alcoholic father. One boy grew up just the same and defended himself by saying "With a father like mine what would you expect?"

His brother took the straight and narrow and became a successful citizen and great neighbour. When asked why he gave the same reason as his brother!

It's not what life deals us so much as what we choose to make of it. I go livid when I hear someone blame crime on poverty. My folks were classed as poor and so were many of the kids I went to school with but we never even considered becoming criminals! It's really a very patronizing attitude, when you think about it. If you're poor then it's expected you'll turn out to be a crook...

Classic conservativism would never suggest every man for himself, David! Rather, a conservative would believe that everyone has a responsibility to his society. You might have heard stories about how young men from the upper crust in Britain when WWII broke out immediately signed up in droves to the military, especially as pilots even when there were such tremendous losses. Or captains of industry who took on government contracts at a salary of $1 a day. This really happened! It was a very conservative attitude that if your country had been very good to you then you owed it even your very life in return. We seem to have lost that on this side of the pond when rich American parents like Bill Clinton's father could keep them out of the draft and let all the poor kids stand in the line of fire.

If anyone's interested I could come up with a few quotations defining classic liberalism, conservativism and socialism but it could get rather long and I'm bad enough at being long-winded. The important thing is that we really shouldn't label people with some cartoon political misconception of what they believe in. In academic debating circles it's called the "straw man" technique, where you build your opponent into a straw man that YOU define for his beliefs, making them extreme enough that he looks ridiculous. Like saying that Harper would do anything Bush asked of him. Harper has not done any such thing or is likely to. He HAS agreed with Bush on some issues and disagreed on others. Any Prime Minister of Canada is well aware that he is responsible for the well-being of Canada first and foremost. By building him into a straw man his political opponents can attract supporters with smartass humour or fears of betrayal, without ever having to take a logical position on an issue. They just have to say "Everyone knows a conservative will do this" or "Everyone knows a socialist will do that"...it's enough to make one cry.

I miss the Rhinoceros Party...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,740 Posts
Milkman said:
Wow David. I wouldn't expect this from you. Sins of the father eh?
I will support any party who wants to support same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana, PEACE and which has a hope of winning.
..."peace" has become a dirty word, strangely enough. jack layton suggests talking to the enemy, and he is called an idiot.

however, i don't understand why our clear message to criminals is: "don't worry about the damage you do. if our justice system fails to get you off, we taxpayers will absorb the cost of rebuilding what you have destroyed. its the least we can do."

-dh
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top