Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Lots of good debate, but getting back on topic...

I'd like this thread to discuss, from whatever viewpoint, the rhetoric of rookie party leader Michael Ignatieff.

I was hoping for a discussion on Ignatieff's RHETORIC, ie, how he presents his arguments, his wording, etc.

My underlying assumption being: preventing an undesirable Harper majority depends on Ignatieff presenting himself with more sensitivity to how things he says are received by the media and public.

So: instead of patronizingly saying "come into the big red tent (and all will be safe my little sheep)", show some respect and say "the Liberal Party asks you for your support in building a more compassionate Canada."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Aw...Poor bought and paid for Harperite...

You are admitted partisam hack,who's actually put his own money up to assist the party that represents your partisan views...

How am I bought and paid for if I'm the one who puts his money down?

You really shouldn't go off your meds without supervision like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How am I bought and paid for if I'm the one who puts his money down?

You really shouldn't go off your meds without supervision like that.

I thought I read something about being civil with each other in the terms of agreement when I registered on this forum...

Calm it down gents! Dudes...chill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So: instead of patronizingly saying "come into the big red tent (and all will be safe my little sheep)", show some respect and say "the Liberal Party asks you for your support in building a more compassionate Canada."

I don't know why he would want to associate the Liberal party with a big tent anyway. The only association I make is big tent-->circus-->clowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read something about being civil with each other in the terms of agreement when I registered on this forum...

Yeah, that's what it says...but...you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...And you now have zero credibility...

Aww....Jack...did he ever in your eyes have any to begin with?

It wasn't formally a coalition with the BQ and couldn't have succeeded if it were but it was essentially the same thing, and in politics perception is everything. The Liberals and the NDP knew that

which is why they decided to just ask Duceppe for support in trade for some favours. Kind of a weasely way of doing things, a trademark of Dion.

As for Ignatieff, I haven't heard him say a lot. I hear there is an election?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok...

I read this from the quotes thread.

"It's not a question of giving little gifts here and there," he said. "I think the project is important because it's a public space. That's what counts, a public space to present the culture, to present the economic success of the region.

"And if the same case arises in Regina or Vancouver I'll say the same thing ... If we're talking about a public space that contributes to the development of that region, then the federal government can contribute."

...

"There will be an alternative to the Conservatives who are saying no and the NDP that can't do anything, the Bloc (Québécois) that can't deliver anything, and the Liberal party that can deliver the goods on the arena question," Ignatieff said, adding he's impatient to have a debate on the issue in Quebec City.

"Mr. Harper ... said no to the arena. And I say yes, so there's a clear distinction there."

Sounds like he will make a statement and then proceed to completely contradict it.

The clear distinction is he is about giving little gifts here and there.

Edited by Pliny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aww....Jack...did he ever in your eyes have any to begin with?

It wasn't formally a coalition with the BQ and couldn't have succeeded if it were but it was essentially the same thing, and in politics perception is everything. The Liberals and the NDP knew that

which is why they decided to just ask Duceppe for support in trade for some favours. Kind of a weasely way of doing things, a trademark of Dion.

As for Ignatieff, I haven't heard him say a lot. I hear there is an election?

You should realize that I think both "Co-Opalitions" were untennable because of seperatist involvment...

I did'nt support either of them...

Both were weasely,and I can remember thinking in 2004...Conservatives getting in bed with seperatists is right out of the Mulroney playbook...

I can remember being astonished in 2008 that the party of Pierre Trudeau would do the same thing...

I find both ideas quite disgusting...

And to answer your question...

No he did'nt...But no ideologue,left or right,has alot of credibility with me...

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Ignatieff, I haven't heard him say a lot.

For all the books he's written, he should be able to communicate some passion for a grander theme that catches voters' imaginations.

OK, "Family Pack" and "middle class" etc. He sounds like a policy wonk. How about some perspective? Canadian society is polarizing, the fear among members of the middle class is that if they aren't going to be one of the few who get richer, they are going to become a part of the growing underclass. ("What growing underclass?" Mike and Steve asked in unison.)

With basic things like food (how more basic can one get) becoming more expensive, life is getting a lot tougher in the lower echelons of Canadian society. Or do they not count any longer? There used to be a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped up. Now, more and more the spirit seems to be: "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye."

Harper's policies are for the already-fortunate. A fitness tax credit? Great. How about a grocery rebate for the guy stacking boxes in a warehouse all day so his kid isn't hungry at school?

Axe the per-vote-subsidy? The Conservatives receive the most private donations, and don't care about families who are spending large proportions of their income on rent, food, transit, etc.. So, leave the parties that represent lower income brackets with even less means to be a voice for people who can't afford to donate from their own wallet to politicians.

Ignatieff has to distinguish himself by saying he is fighting for a more equitable Canada, while Harper is moving Canadian society towards having a polarized small elite and a growing underclass.

(And since he is part of an elite himself, Ignatieff has to let the best-spoken egalitarians in his party have more exposure.)

Edited by expat voter
Link to post
Share on other sites

William Ashely is funny. All oil is stolen...Remember the BP disaster - it was like a kid stealing candy, running down the street -tripping and spilling it all over the sidewalk. Hope someone nice gets to broker the arms deal with the "rebels" - would be sad if an evil arms dealer got this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to ask that too, as far as I know there is very little of it, only a handful of social conservatives left. Also Harper has reiterated that they will not revisit abortion or gay marriage. Mind you, I don't like the 'bible thumping' aspect of some Liberals people either, but everyone has a voice, or should. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously trying to claim that only cabinet ministers are members of the governing party?
Only cabinet ministers are members of the government. Seeing as only the NDP and LPC formed the cabinet, then those are the only two governing parties. Of course, I shouldn't bother replying to you, since you're a liar and intellectually bankrupt.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the books he's written, he should be able to communicate some passion for a grander theme that catches voters' imaginations.

OK, "Family Pack" and "middle class" etc. He sounds like a policy wonk. How about some perspective? Canadian society is polarizing, the fear among members of the middle class is that if they aren't going to be one of the few who get richer, they are going to become a part of the growing underclass. ("What growing underclass?" Mike and Steve asked in unison.)

With basic things like food (how more basic can one get) becoming more expensive, life is getting a lot tougher in the lower echelons of Canadian society. Or do they not count any longer? There used to be a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped up. Now, more and more the spirit seems to be: "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye."

Why is food getting more expensive? Bigger demand? Smaller supply? Or is supply and demand relevant?

Increased transportation and other production costs? Does it matter to those fortunates in the upper echelons? Does inflation and fixed incomes have anything to do with it?

Who has a feeling that the less fortunate should not be helped? What is "help"? What is the reason for this drop in a broader feeling that the less fortunate should be helped and the growing spirit of "learn to swim in the growing waves, or go sink by yourself, bye-bye"?

Harper's policies are for the already-fortunate. A fitness tax credit? Great. How about a grocery rebate for the guy stacking boxes in a warehouse all day so his kid isn't hungry at school?

Are you part of the already-fortunate? A fitness tax credit is a Liberal idea and I don't approve. You see, if people are more fit then our health-care will cost less? Isn't that great? The guy stacking boxes all day so his kid isn't hungry at school is what everyone who has kids is basically doing. Sounds like he is learning to swim in the growing waves and not choosing to just float along with rebates.

Axe the per-vote-subsidy? The Conservatives receive the most private donations, and don't care about families who are spending large proportions of their income on rent, food, transit, etc.. So, leave the parties that represent lower income brackets with even less means to be a voice for people who can't afford to donate from their own wallet to politicians.

Let's all vote ourselves a raise! Yay! We can do it if we just decide to act together. United we stand.

Collectively, we should just make a list and demand politicians give us all the things on the list.

If we all just don't work until they give us what we want that'll work.

Ignatieff has to distinguish himself by saying he is fighting for a more equitable Canada, while Harper is moving Canadian society towards having a polarized small elite and a growing underclass.

Yep! It's all about little gifts here and there! Yay!

(And since he is part of an elite himself, Ignatieff has to let the best-spoken egalitarians in his party have more exposure.)

Yay! More little gifts here and there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only cabinet ministers are members of the government. Seeing as only the NDP and LPC formed the cabinet, then those are the only two governing parties. Of course, I shouldn't bother replying to you, since you're a liar and intellectually bankrupt.

The coalition was more of a "conniption", I guess. The headline in the Star on Dec.1, 2008 was "Liberals, NDP and Bloc Form Coalition". Obviously a lie. But Dion could not have gone anywhere by including the BQ and only secured their "support" with a few promised favours - the plan fizzled like a dud firecracker that backfired on Dion when he picked it up. The coalition could have easily fallen if the BQ decided to vote non-confidence - it wasn't an agreement of unconditional support.

Essentially, distancing the Bloc was a necessity, it was all smoke and mirrors to give credibility to the alliance - the BQ had the bull by the testes. It was a coalition in all but name. Perception is important and it couldn't be a coalition.

Ignatieff doesn't want a coalition. He wants to be PM. There is a red tent and a blue tent and if the red tent doesn't get full then I'm going home!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I do...

Do you know that Harper was not only in favour of but a strong promoter of the Canadian Bank mergers with US banks a few years back?

Where would THAT have left us when the shit hit the fan?

Was a PC Prime Minister who brought in the bank act. The TD has done very well with Bank Mergers in the US, considering the expansion they have gone through in that market. Create more then a few Canadian jobs hasn't it?

Edited by Alta4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites

The TD has done very well with Bank Mergers in the US, considering the expansion they have gone through in that market.

Not just TD....

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101217/bmo-buys-us-bank-101217/

Not only have Canadian banks been merging, they have been absorbing, assimilating and digesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you continue perpetrating a lie in your sig?

they are jacks own words, I think you and I have been through this once before though

Edited by Alta4ever
Link to post
Share on other sites

they are jacks own words, I think you and I have been through this once before though

In context, as far as I could find it:

What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it? He [Harper] was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties. He had 38% of the vote and he’s trying to govern like he had 100% of the power. He’s the one who’s got democracy wrong, not us.
Edited by Evening Star
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...