Brandon716
Senior Member
I am all for Iggy taking on Harper on his own. I just rather not have Jack and Gilles riding his coattails.
Just like you were all for Harper in the last election against Dion?
|
|
|
I am all for Iggy taking on Harper on his own. I just rather not have Jack and Gilles riding his coattails.
I told you then that I wasn't some comitted ideologue. And that hasn't changed. Dion I didn't like. Iggy is more of a centrist, one that i can support.Just like you were all for Harper in the last election against Dion?
I told you then that I wasn't some comitted ideologue. And that hasn't changed. Dion I didn't like. Iggy is more of a centrist, one that i can support.
What we have is a disagreement about what is healthy for reviving the left and centre-left in Canada, not that I have a grave misunderstanding of the Canadian system. I still think the coalition idea is the best way to unite the left and centre-left and show Canada they can seriously govern while retaining separate party identities with slightly different philosophies.
Edit: I think it was interesting that you and hydrogen chose to react to my comments line-by-line, basically saying that I'm just ignorant and unknowing of the Canadian system, instead of making your own statements.
And if all I am doing is rousing reactionary attention from centre-right "liberals" who backed Harper when they found it convenient, or vehemently deny global warming and climate change are a reality, then I'm actually amused.
And who made you ambassador of all Canadians, someone who has the authority to say that Canadians "don't want" to see a viable left and centre-left alternative? I never pretended to know what all Canadians wanted, what I am offering are ideas to make the left and centre-left attractive enough to be wanted.
And what you clearly misunderstand is that many people in Canada see no need to unite the left and centre left and to create a gulf in the middle - regardless of your opinions on topics you have no experience in.
Oh Hydrogen, where did you hear me say that voting Conservative is 'unCanadian'? I didn't say anything of the sort anywhere in this thread. Go back and re-read the comments my friend. Read them carefully.
My ideas for discussion are about how to revive the left and centre-left. You guys apparently (based on what I've observed) want to get rid of any left tendencies in the Liberal party and make it a centre-right party to align beside the right wing Conservative party.
Its amazing just the ideas being thrown around apparently bother you so much that the only argument you have is that someone is too ignorant to post their ideas.
And who made you ambassador of all Canadians, someone who has the authority to say that Canadians "don't want" to see a viable left and centre-left? I never pretended to know what all Canadians wanted, what I am offering are ideas to make the left and centre-left attractive enough to be wanted.
Its amazing just the ideas being thrown around apparently bother you so much that the only argument you have is that someone is too ignorant to post their ideas.
And if you want to bring the fact up that I'm a native born American up again, I'd like to set the record straight. I'm having to prove to the Canadian government my worthiness of becoming a Canadian. I've had to spend years walking through legal code and nonsense just to prove I care about Canada. Personally I don't like the US that much, otherwise I wouldn't be putting so much effort into being in Canada. You've got the luxury of being a Canadian by birth, you don't have to prove anything to anyone. If I didn't care about Canada, would I even bother participating in these kinds of discussions? Do you really think I'm that unknowing of the Canadian system? If not, stop with the ignorant, lowest common denominator comments.
In the interests of keeping the forum friendly and open, I think it'd be beneficial if you didn't so imperiously stomp on others' viewpoints. Something about disagreeing without being disagreeable.
Ignatieff's a decent guy, though, and he couldn't bring down the government without at least reading for himself what they actually had to say. .
Except that it's *not* so easy in practice--besides, maybe the existing Liberal and NDP are already "attractive enough to be wanted" in and of themselves, more so than if they were conglomerated into one.
But beyond that, why must it be a "coalition"? Why can't it be a simple Liberal minority government, supported by the NDP--just like Pearson in the 60s, Trudeau in '72, Ontario's Peterson/Rae deal in 1985? The only reason why that hasn't happened lately is because unlike in the past, Grit + NDP haven't had enough combined seats for a true minority; and the recent "coalition" stunting is because the Liberals by themselves have been reduced to too few seats. But there's an absolutely realistic prospect of, after the next election, the Liberals and NDP combined finally crossing the 154-seat threshold--which is enough to validate a Pearson/Trudeau-style "true" minority, without having to gesticulate about a coalition...
No offense, but this sounds a bit naive. I can guarantee you that Iggy's weekend had less to do with reading the "report", and more to do with polls and strategy. By forcing Harper to meet his demands or else, Iggy look Prime-Ministerial, and the blame for a summer election may lie at the feet of Haper. It's communications 101.
They are politicians, so unfortunately everything is considered within the context of gaining power.