Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!
Only name on the ballot, May 2, 2009 – “Ignatieff won 97 per cent of the votes of the 2000-odd delegates at the party’s three-day convention. “
Only name on the ballot, Oct.16, 2002 – “Iraqi officials say President Saddam Hussein has won 100% backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years. “
h/t Phil
Jesse Ketchum – you are quite incorrect. Harper never moved or approved a motion about ‘the Quebec Nation’. Could you explain to us why you are telling us this?
And no, it wasn’t a ‘big step towards independence’. Could you also justify this opinion of yours?
Facts matter, Jesse Ketchum. Fiction remains in your mind. Let me tell you the facts.
First, Ignatieff (got that?) proposed, during the 2006 Liberal leadership campaign, to define Quebec, the geographic territory, as a Nation in the Constitution. The Quebec Liberals readily adopted this resolution.
Afraid of losing Quebec votes, Duceppe of the Bloc introduced a motion in the House to recognize Quebec as a nation. Now, the House had to deal with it.
Harper stepped in to stop this geographic territorial claim,- which would also require a constitutional change – and proposed the Motion as recognizing ” the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada’.
‘Quebecois’ is a 19th c. concept that refers to the people of a cultural bloc not the geography. And to all people in Quebec, not just francophones. Furthermore, these people function as this 19th c notion of a ‘cultural population’ only within a united Canada. They have no legal status outside of it as ‘a nation’.
I’m surprised that you don’t know these facts.
If I may point out now that Mr Ignatiff has “outed” himself with respect to his lack of religous beliefs.
The difference between Mr Ignatiff and God, well for starters God dosen’t think that he is Mr. Ignatiff.
All this “Harper is divisive” stuff.
THIS from a man who signed onto the most divisive abomination ever brought forth in this country – The Coalition of the Idiots.
Good thing is, that piece of crap woke many un-politically aware Canadians up from their slumber.
Iggy says, “I’m a ‘Mike’ Pearson Liberal preserved in aspic, one of the last remaining specimens of its kind, and damned proud to be.”
And at the same time Iggy tries to claim that he’s all about renewing the Liberals?
Copied in its entirety.
The concluding paragraph is here:
“Meanwhile we have to wait and see how far in the ladder a donation of CDN$ 50,000 could take Theo Anthony in the Liberal Party of Canada.”
Is this being investigated by the RCMP/CSIS?
…-
“Liberals and NDP in a race to inherit Tiger legacy in Canada
Fri, 2009-05-01 03:28
By a special correspondent Vishnu – Mississauga – Toronto
Toronto, 01 May, (Asiantribune.com): Another attempt by Tamil Tigers to hijack Canadian Conservative government failed miserably on Tuesday April 21, 2009. After weeks of protests waving LTTE flags unsuccessful protesters hide their flags on Tuesday in order to bring Canadian politicians out of the parliament; to address the gathering but failed adding more stress to their agony. Also Canadian parliament rejected the idea of having another emergency debate on Sri Lanka as suggested by Gim Karigiyanis and Albina Guaneri MPs of Liberal party of Canada.
Only politician caught on the LTTE trap was the New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton. On Tuesday Mr. Layton addressed the same crowd those who on the previous day carried Tamil Tiger flags and chanted “Prabakaran is our leader”. In that sense Jack Layton became the first Canadian political party leader to address a terrorist rally in Canada.
On the other hand Liberal party leader Michel Ignatiaff did the right thing. He sent an unrelated person to convey his massage to the crowd. Even LTTE man inside liberal party Mr. Theo Anthony couldn’t change Liberal leader’s action. But still Liberal leader don’t understand the depth of the hole some of his GTA MP’s had dig in for him with the help of Tamil Tigers in Toronto.
To get the correct picture, Liberal leader must first understand the story of the LTTE man inside his party. The Liberal party outreach coordinator Mr. Theo Anthony is coming from a family belongs to Prabhakaran’s caste (Flocks of the same feather); the beneficiary band of LTTE.
Theo Anthony happens to be a brother of well known LTTE international “property czar” late Mampalam, a pioneer member of well established LTTE economic wing. Also he happens to be the brother of Sean Anthony (Stan)who is in charge of Mexican businesses for LTTE. He also owns a part of CMR radio & TVI which also known as the main LTTE mouth piece in Toronto.
Theo Anthony is also the brother in law of well known Sri Lankan Fr. Sinnarasa; who is living in Toronto under the name of Antony Philip. Fr. Sinnarasa is wanted for Neervely Bank robbery in Sri Lanka, where 81,00,000 Rupees were robbed on March 25th 1981.
In September 1983, Father Sinnarasa escaped from custody during the famous Batticoloa jailbreak. Sinnarasa and Theo Anthony’s sister’s marriage was solemnized by LTTE while they were in the training camp of Tamil Nadu. Theo Anthony has another brother named Kumar Anthony is in the shadow group of Canadian Tamil Congress which also happened to be controlling some Liberal politicians in Toronto through its fundraising and voting arrangements. If Liberal leader cannot recognize these terrorists hidden in tie and a jacket let the god help him and his party.
On the other hand Canada’s left wing political party NDP has quickly becoming a victim of Tamil Tigers. It is becoming very clear that NDP is having problems with understanding and separating issues of Tamil Tigers and the issues of Tamils in Sri Lanka. It also seems NDP is fully unaware of fact that Canadian Tamil Congress blocked NDP Tamil candidates in the previous elections just to pave the way for future pro-LTTE candidate from Liberal party of Canada.
Meanwhile we have to wait and see how far in the ladder a donation of CDN$ 50,000 could take Theo Anthony in the Liberal Party of Canada.”
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/17194
Harper’s government voted for the motion to declare “Quebeckers” a nation. That motion is the cancer that will kill Canada.
Go to Montreal and see what it means. Look at how even Harper talks about “Quebec and Canada”.
Don’t yammer about the Bloc and Iggy. Harper was PM. Harper voted for it. The crazies in Quebec now believe the House of Commons says they’re a nation.
Would Dief have done that?
What would Sir John A think?
jesse ketchup – don’t tell me that I ‘yammer’; I don’t accept insults. Stick to the issues.
And I’m not into Monday-morning speculation about what would Diefenbacker or Sir J.A. MacDonald have done. Kindly remember that both of them lived BEFORE Trudeau’s infamous Charter of Rights, which made bilingualism a constitutional right, and therefore, put our governmental structure into the hands of Quebec.
If you want to put the blame on elevating Quebec as a governing force, it was this document, and these clauses – that make up most of the Charter, by the way, that effected this result. Kindly read the Charter before you comment. You might also read the Constitution and read how Quebec gets 75 seats in the House, no matter how low its population – and gets increases according to its privileged ratio.
Again, you totally reject the truth. It was not only NOT ‘Harper’s government’ that voted for ‘Quebeckers (sic) a nation’ – but that wasn’t the Motion.
It was ‘That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”
Kindly differentiate between a population as a nation, a 19th c definition of nation’ and a ‘geographic territory as a nation. And please remember the phrase – ‘within a united Canada.
Also, pay attention to the history of this motion. Would you have preferred Ignatieff and Duceppe’s agenda? They both were promoting, not ‘the Quebecois’ (the people), but QUEBEC (the geographic domain). And no mention of ‘within a united Canada.
Would you have preferred the Ignatieff-Duceppe motion? It was already tabled; Harper amended it to prevent their agenda.
And – you obviously know nothing about Quebec. They’ve felt alienated from ‘Canada’ for generations – not since this Motion. Not since the Charter. Long, long before. Ever heard of the PQ? The FLQ? Rene Levesque? Where have you been? In fact, they refuse to consider themselves part of Canada. Have you lived there? I have – for many years.
THEY are the ones who set up the verbiage of Quebec and Canada. Did you read the Liberal-NDP Coalition Agreement? Did you read that they refer to Canada and Quebec????
Try to think, and base your emotions on thought and facts.
“”…now its spreading to Canada?”
The swine flew.”
When pigs fly…..damn, a pig just smacked into my window.
Do you think Ignatieff came back to Canada because he really needed a well paying job?
If you look at his past “employment” – BBC announcer, executive director of a think tank (Carr Centre) one would not have to look too far to discover that his current gig as leader of the Liberals is the best paying job he has ever had.
If you search his books none are anywhere near the sales to give any kind of residual income.
And he himself says he has no stocks or bonds or investments so what about retirement savings?
Also, his reputation with Democrats in the US was in tatters thanks to his unabashed support of the Iraq war and encouragement of Bush. The kind of dry pompous opinion pieces he did for the BBC for 15 years are totally out of favour worldwide.
He has never had tenure at any academic institution as a professor- the closest was his recent parachute into the U of T by Liberal bagmen as “visiting Professor”. He really has no marketable skills in the “real” world – people don’t get paid to sit in ivory towers to ponder and emote. Who would hire a guy like this?
The guy needs the money and a pension – and we Canadians are just the rubes to fall for his emotive fakery to give him the lifestyle he so feels he deserves (being royalty and all).
What do you guys think?
So which American media covered his speech, you know the American media Jane Taber breathlessly said woudl be there last week?
“”If you can’t unite Canadians, if you can’t appeal to the best in all of us, we can.” This is a crock! The country has been seriously divided for some time (just ask the West or Quebec or the myriad of people who get screwed because of Liberal catering to their pet “special interest” groups (eg. SOW-types, Hezbollah, Tamils). What the Conservatives don’t do is cater to these types so then they start to complain, the media (always on top of a controversy) plays up the discontent.
I think there is a lot less regional pressure since Harper was elected. So “Harper the divider” is just so much more Liberal posturing. Any uniting that has (or is likely) to happen under Liberals is no more than “pretending” to meet everyones demands while doing nothing. It is true that “do nothing” in Canada goes a long way.
Harper voted for the resolution that said “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”
Do you think the last four words mean anything in Quebec?
Even Trudeau was not that stupid.
Charter = not applicable to Harper’d decision.
Coalition = not applicable to Harper’s decision.
Harper could have said no.
Where have you been[Jesse Ketchup]?… Try to think, and base your emotions on thought and facts.
Jesse, why don’t you give up? You’re so far behind in this debate, you’ll never ketchup.
ET…excellent as usual!
Lorraine…yep!
Jesse @6:02…do you realise with that comment you have proven that PMSH is not the divider, that indeed it is the Seperatists who alienate Quebec, in spite of PMSH.
Dionky Baseball.
Don Iconnyou Bwaaaadcasting from here at Mudville Stadium.
Buzz is in his hair.
Hezbollah Coderre is on all fours.
And here’s the pitch …..
It’s a swinggggg …. and a MissIggy.
…-
“Ignatieff preps Liberals for election
Insisting that he still wants to make Parliament work, newly crowned Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Sunday he plans to have his party’s election platform ready next month.”
…-
“Donkey basketball endures in rural US
It’s a Monday night in this small south-central Iowa farm town, and the high-school gym is full. There’s a buzz in the air. Before long, the stars amble in from a side door – on all fours.”
(canoenews)
jess ketchup – you are, I must confess, quite unbelievable. What’s your point with ‘Harper voted’? So did Dion, Ignatieff, Duceppe, Layton and the whole gang of them.
You haven’t answered my questions.
First, you get the Motion completely wrong.
Then, you totally ignore the history of this Motion; indeed, you reject it as irrelevant, when the FACTS are Ignatieff proposed a concept that ‘Quebec (geographic domain) is a nation’.
The Quebec branch of the federal Liberals voted to approve this! Got that? Do you realize what this meant? That meant that the Liberal Party approved this; they had to, or they’d lose the Quebec votes.
Then, Duceppe jumped in and proposed it as a Motion in the House. Do you know what that means? I strongly suspect you don’t. It means that this Motion: ‘Quebec (the geographic domain) is a nation’ HAD to go to the House of Commons vote.
It would have passed – the Bloc and the Liberals would have made sure of that, even if the Conservatives rejected it..which would have ended any chance of them in Quebec.
So, Harper had to change and deflate it. He changed it to ‘the Quebecois (the people) as a nation in a united Canada’.
You may think it’s meaningless, but I assure you, legally, these two differences (Quebecois people, united Canada) are vital.
Your ignorance of the Charter doesn’t mean that you can validly claim that its insertion of bilingualism as an official definition of Canada didn’t apply to the development of Quebec primacy in Canada.
Equally, your ignorance of the Constitution, doesn’t mean that Quebec is not privileged. It is.
Furthermore – you, and I’m quite stunned by your, what can I say, ignorance of reality – still refuse to see that Harper defused this Motion with his change of the wording.
Think. It was a Motion brought by Ignatieff-Duceppe in the House. It HAD to be voted on. So, answer my question: Would you have preferred this original Motion, or, the one that Harper amended, to defuse the situation?
Again. Think. As a Motion, unless it was withdrawn by the Mover (Duceppe), it HAD to go to the vote. Would you have preferred the original Motion?
Kindly answer my question..and think. Think about this Motion. Think about what Ignatieff did; what the Quebec Liberals did; what Duceppe did..and how Harper defused the Motion.
As for what Quebecers think (in a united Canada) I doubt that you have a clue; you obviously know nothing about the separatiste movement, about the ‘two solitudes’ of English and French, and about what it’s really like to live in Quebec.
And don’t be so naive and ignorant, as to say that ‘Harper voted for it’. and ‘he could have said no’. There is no way that he could say ‘no’; the original Motion, as proposed by Ignatieff-Duceppe would have passed. Got that? Because they are after Quebec votes. It would have passed! And it would have passed – validating Quebec as a geographic domain..as a nation!!!
Do you understand? Harper changed it; he removed that result..and switched it to an inocuous ‘population’ in a ‘united Canada’. Rather than what would have passed – the geographic domain of Quebec as a nation’.
Again – would you have preferred this original Motion? How about an answer.
Harper saved the day by changing it to a Quebecois nation within a united Canada. What a disaster the Ignatieff/Duceppe geographic domain would have been.
It’s another example how the Liberals will join with the Bloc then condemn the Conservatives if the Bloc happens to as much as vote with them on an issue. Ignatieff was far out of his league on that count. We really can’t take a chance on someone that hungry for votes with little knowledge of the consequences.
Of course this duo were part o the troika who signed the coalition document proving for them, power trumps the stability of the country.
So because the rest voted for it, Harper did, too.
The Prime Minister could have said no. He could have stood up for Canada.
He didn’t.
Wow, Ketchup seems to be a bit thick.
PM Harper DID stand up for Canada, ALL of Canada.
ET, I trust you realize that you’re most probably “debating” a 15 year old boy living in his parent’s basement?
He’s like a homemade go-cart, stuck in one gear, with a little lawnmower engine fueled by HDS (Harper Derangement Syndrome), trying to race around with the adults on the freeway. In other words, yet another troll visiting from the CBC News website!
Thick? Concrete is a more accurate description. I don’t think I’ve seen a view as ignorant as that of Ketchup in a very long time. If ever.
And he/she still hasn’t answered my question. Since the Motion of Ignatieff-Duceppe was on the House agenda, it had to be voted on. Would Ketchup have preferred that original Motion?
As Liz points out, Harper and only Harper, stood up for Canada. Harper DID say ‘no’, Ketchup. He refused to accept Ignatieff-Duceppe’s description and changed it to a cultural description of the Quebecois within a united Canada.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone as frankly dumb as Ketchup..Incredible. Hasn’t a clue about the House operations; no idea of the history of the Motion. Has no idea about living in Quebec. Thick is an understatement of his/her mind.
Again, how about answering my question. The Ignatieff-Duceppe Motion HAD to go to a vote. It couldn’t be withdrawn; it could only be amended. Would you have preferred it to the one that Harper changed it to?
robert – yes, my apologies. I usually never interact with trolls – and ignored that Jesse is indeed, one. And no more than 15, that’s for sure.
Reality check time.
If only 2000 of 7000 eligible delgates showed up to vote, that means Iggy actually only has the support of only two of every seven liberals.
Which is the same logic used by the opposition to legitimize their coalition that 67% of Canadians didn’t vote conservative.
72% didn’t vote for Iggy.
Thats not a “scientific poll” thats the result based on the same logic liberals have used to justify giving a parliamentary veto to the Bloc….in writing.
Giggyles, colourman for IconnyouDonnn, reports with a windup from the Dionky Baseball Game at Mudville:
Mighty Iggy has struck out.
Again.
Boob (Hi. I’m Mao Stlong’s nephew.) Rae hawked a sway on his way to the dugout and split.
…-
“Liberals split on election question
VANCOUVER — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has emerged from this weekend’s convention with a ringing endorsement of his leadership and some money in the party’s coffers, but he also leaves Vancouver with a caucus split on one crucial question: when to call an election.
One veteran MP said Sunday the caucus is divided on when to go to the polls. Those who want an election very soon – as early as June – believe it could be their last opportunity until after the 2010 Olympics. One of the most hawkish members, the MP said, is Bob Rae, who nominated Mr. Ignatieff on Saturday and holds a lot of sway in the caucus.
Says another senior Liberal MP: “This government could last a lot longer than expected. I mean 2010 and possibly 2011. There are people that want to go as early as June. They are not factoring in the [Bloc Québécois’] and NDP’s lack of desire to have an election.”
All three opposition parties have to join forces to bring down the government, and the Bloc and NDP have lost interest in going quickly to the polls.”
urlm.in/cikh
James McNulty of the Vancouver Province on Iggy. He claims he “… travels easily among the world’s intelligencia” and “..His demeanour and sharp physical features are reminiscent of Pierre Trudeau”.
Obviously he, like Trudeau, makes McNulty’s heart go pitta-pat!
Who were the “three-percenters”?
How can one not get 100% when one is the only candidate. Incompetenmce? Just ugliness? Or the desire to make your coronation appear “democratic”?
Hey, don’t get Iggy wrong. He’s just the front-man. The trad liberals, eg Jean Chretian, are still in charge.
Tell you who divided the Liberals further at the sham leadership convention was sh*t disturber Chretien. That’s who’s recommending an election sooner rather than later.
Could it be he’s not enamoured with the chosen one?
For sure Iggy is the window dressing, the old boys are pulling the strings and they aren’t exactly all in agreement with much of anything. Martin looked pretty pathetic, stammering on about how Harper squandered his surplus. That would be the surplus bolstered by pilfering from EI funds.
I think it would be risky for Liberals to go as early as June — depending on what’s happening in the country at the time. My own thinking is that if Canadians are scared about things like worsening recession, swine flu, Taliban getting nukes or some other world catastrophe, they are unlikely to want to rock the boat. (Good approval numbers for Harper in a recent poll.) They are also likely to be put off by a phony election if there is no apparent issue on the table on which to call an election. Employment insurance ain’t it.
Once they were the mighty Librano$!
Now they’re just….the Munsters.
From left to right: Judi Sgro; Ralph Goodale; Iggy; Mark Holland; Ruby Dhalla
http://www.moviestore.com/Photos/T106575_C55758.html
“CHRC policy to expand their mandate to include the “Social Condition” — Hey isn’t this similar to what Clinton and the Dems did when they got into the sub-prime mortgage mess?
“One of the most hawkish members, the MP said, is Bob Rae” I wonder if Rae is pushing for an early election because he suspects Iggy will fail — thus paving the way for his own coronation.
I don’t think the comparison of Michael Ignatieff to Saddam Hussein is worthy of notice here. First of all, the Liberal Party is a private organization and can do whatever it wants with regard to choosing its leader. In this case, they are confirming one rather than having a race with competing candidates. Most of the time they have had a race. Second, a leadership contest within a party — a private organization, once again — is not the same thing as a general election and does not need to follow the same rules. “Democracy” only applies to a general election. It is not “undemocratic” for a political party to appoint and/or confirm a leader without a contest.
It’s Kate’s usual dishonest logic.
There ya go Jesse K. Can’t answer ET’s question, so you attack the Host.
Don’t know about the 15 year old prospect, we have 30, 40, 50 and 60 year old Liberal Democrat Obabots down heya in the Good Ole USA that sound and act just like JK.
IMHO, ya arguing with a STOP Sign.
,
No wonder it’s Chretien plumping for an election sooner rather than later.
If the Libs don’t get back into power soon, all hope is gone for the wealth distribution that Kyoto was going to deliver, which would greatly benefit Mo Strong’s, Chretien’s, and Martin’s business prospects in China. No doubt, Power Corp’s got a few fingers in that pie too.
These Liberals are something else. Totally corrupt, yet yipping at the heels of the most honest, hardest working PM Canada’s had in ages. ‘Figures, however. Along with being an astonishingly corrupt operation, the Librano$ are the most shameless hussies going.
Of course Chretien’s plumping for an early election. The Libs are desperate to get back into power so that the Kyoto wealth redistribution scheme can be put in place to benefit Mo Strong’s, Chretien’s, and Martin’s business prospects in China. No doubt, Power Corp has a few fingers in that pie too.
These guys are something else: disgustingly corrupt politicians yipping at the heels of the most honest, hard working Prime Minister Canada’s had in a long time.
Good Lord, deliver us.
They both won with 140% of the vote, Saddam dumbed it down to 100%. Iggy dumbed it down to 97%. No big deal.