Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Conservative attack adds on Trudeau:Right on schedule


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I checked out the interview a few times,he starts out sounding reasonable.

It breaks down when he starts saying "But there is no question"

Looking at the "root causes" will and must be done just so that the US knows what they are up against.

Ezra actually starts this analysis pretty good,but starts to deteriate when he starts to imply that it was actually Osama Bin Laden (now dead) who set this bomb.

It's not even yet determined that it was foreign terrorism that was behind this act (another reason why Ezra is very bad).

Regardless,Justin seems to be more than happy to supply ammo against him!

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

And like chretien he pretty well blamed it on the west. And what is with the ''you know'' he might be 41 but he sounds like a teenager. And ezra did not say osama did it.

Edited by PIK
Link to post
Share on other sites

The attack ads are pathetic, just like the CPC. I look forward to a new government be it a Mulcair, or a Trudeau one. I will be happy to have taxpayers money spent wisely on things that benefit Canadians rather than on gazebos, fake lakes, and the millions spent on "action plan" propaganda. When all the info on the CPC involvement in election day robofraud comes out it should put the final hole in the sinking CPC ship. Oh wait I almost forgot, they apprehended pierre poutine, the scapegoat Sona who masterminded the whole thing and had access to all the info in the Conjob database, I'm sure Canadians will be stupid enough to believe that line of BS. NOT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs attack adds when you have justin as leader, his interview with mansbridge when asked about boston, he showed what a flake he is. At the 13 minute mark.

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/justin-trudeau-interview/16amyqc52?cpkey=cbcc2013-1704-2121-0015-238027727500%257c%257c%257c%257c

What was wrong with what he said exactly? Please explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And like chretien he pretty well blamed it on the west. And what is with the ''you know'' he might be 41 but he sounds like a teenager. And ezra did not say osama did it.

And just like any other run-of-the-mill sycophants to western imperialism Harper and Levant are there to inform us that self-righteousness is the only proper response to the question of root causes.
To be fair to Harper though he did say that now is simply not the time but given it's been over a decade since 9/11 when will that time come?
In the meantime it was only a matter of minutes after the attack on Boston for people like Harper and Levant to start jumping on Muslims. It was hours before anyone started jumping on the sycophants.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs attack adds when you have justin as leader, his interview with mansbridge when asked about boston, he showed what a flake he is. At the 13 minute mark.

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/justin-trudeau-interview/16amyqc52?cpkey=cbcc2013-1704-2121-0015-238027727500||||

Since you are incapable of elaborating why what he said makes him a "flake", I assume you realize now you didn't understand what he said the first time around.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Long-time no see :)

Don't get me wrong, I still despise them..........but boy oh boy, the NDP in power would just be scary ;)

Not sure how that article helps the NDP though.

Since you are incapable of elaborating why what he said makes him a "flake", I assume you realize now you didn't understand what he said the first time around.

He just kinda sounds thoughtless. Seems like a nice enough guy but I'm not sure he knows what he wants or what direction he's going. He was outclassed by basically every other speaker at the meeting.

He sounds like a kid trying to represent something.....he just doesn't know exactly what that is yet. He's the leader because of lack of alternatives and he's good looking. Maybe in time he will ease into things, but he will still need to figure out what he believes before anybody else believes it.

I may yet vote for the Liberal Party but Justin is a little embarrassing. I realize in many cases the leader is just the mascot anyway, but speaking as an academic he holds zero appeal. His statements have about as much depth as a board meeting trying to craft a mission statement at my place of work. I do realize his appeal will be greater to the American Idol demographic, which is of course massive.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

He sounds like a kid trying to represent something.....he just doesn't know exactly what that is yet. He's the leader because of lack of alternatives and he's good looking. Maybe in time he will ease into things, but he will still need to figure out what he believes before anybody else believes it.

You didn't even watch the video PIK is referring to, did you?
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with what he said exactly? Please explain.

Do you think that calm rationalization and exploration of the feelings of terrorists and how society makes them feel "marginalized" is the best way to deal with murderous terrorists who blow people up?

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't even watch the video PIK is referring to, did you?

The only thing he seems clear on is that he's against coalitions with separatists in Quebec, and he is against the CPC and NDP.

Was there something I missed? Maybe you can describe what he would do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think that calm rationalization and exploration of the feelings of terrorists and how society makes them feel "marginalized" is the best way to deal with murderous terrorists who blow people up?

Since that's not what he said, I assume you think being rational is the answer?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The attack ads are pathetic, just like the CPC. I look forward to a new government be it a Mulcair, or a Trudeau one. I will be happy to have taxpayers money spent wisely on things that benefit Canadians rather than on gazebos, fake lakes, and the millions spent on "action plan" propaganda. When all the info on the CPC involvement in election day robofraud comes out it should put the final hole in the sinking CPC ship. Oh wait I almost forgot, they apprehended pierre poutine, the scapegoat Sona who masterminded the whole thing and had access to all the info in the Conjob database, I'm sure Canadians will be stupid enough to believe that line of BS. NOT.

But yet when chretien went after day and harper with real arttack adds, that is ok. People tend to forget who started these adds. What goes around comes around. But I see harper can't even critize trudeau ,without the boy wonder getting upset about that. I am seeing that maybe harper is right, the boy is in over his head, politics is a bloodsport. Even the libs and the NDP will have theirs also. The left side seems to have very short memories.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And like chretien he pretty well blamed it on the west. And what is with the ''you know'' he might be 41 but he sounds like a teenager. And ezra did not say osama did it.

Ezra implied

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since that's not what he said, I assume you think being rational is the answer?

I already stated what he said in the video, take whatever meaning you want from it. To me, when Justin said " ...it is important not to marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future..." implies to me that he thinks that terrorists feel marginalized and that's why they do evil things like blow up innocent people.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to post
Share on other sites

THERE WILL BE SOLDIERS WITH GUNS....IN OUR CITIES....

Classic stuff! Oh the memories.

Actually,in the 90's,the reform party started some fairly harsh attack adds attacking Cretein and Bouchard because they were from French Canada.

Can't find them so I can't post.

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit the one about chretien's mouth was brutal, but it showed the conservatives had no clue how to do a good attack add.

Edited by PIK
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with what he said exactly? Please explain.

I will explain what I think was wrong with it. First, I understand what he meant, sort of. He's a mushy liberal, and he's angst ridden that people are so full of anger and rage that they're resorting to terrorism. We should understand why they're doing such things, why they're so angry, and address their concerns.

And that's the problem. Let me use the same words in another way. Someone is murdering people because he's angry about X. Boy, we better go and take care of X, and make him happy!

And therein lies an invitation to anyone in the world who feels they have been unfairly treated, rightly or wrongly, to start setting off bombs so that well meaning politicians like Justin Trudeau, perhaps Prime Minister of Canada one day, will jump to address and resolve their concerns. If people feel that politicians will do things for them, to placate their anger if they use terrorism as a communications tool then more of them will do it.

I know he doesn't mean to be encouraging terrorism, but that's what he's doing.

A second thing.

He is also suggesting there might be a reasonableness to the demands or anger of such people. There IS no reasonable cause for murdering the innocent. No matter what their cause is, it doesn't justify this. So again, a big fail on this score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I already stated what he said in the video, take whatever meaning you want from it. To me, when Justin said " ...it is important not to marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future..." implies to me that he thinks that terrorists feel marginalized and that's why they do evil things like blow up innocent people.

It implies in so many words, pretty much the same thing to billions of human beings around the planet.

The same sentiment has been worded in many different ways by many different people for years now but some people have chosen to act as if it's the first time they've heard it every time they encounter it. I suppose some of these might just be too plain boneheaded stupid to connect anything together but I suspect most simply don't give a shit so long as the marginalizing, oppressing, dispossessing, torturing, murdering, dictating and whatever else you want to call it doesn't affect them directly. Of course it does affect everyone but...stupid is as stupid does I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will explain what I think was wrong with it. First, I understand what he meant, sort of. He's a mushy liberal, and he's angst ridden that people are so full of anger and rage that they're resorting to terrorism. We should understand why they're doing such things, why they're so angry, and address their concerns.

And that's the problem. Let me use the same words in another way. Someone is murdering people because he's angry about X. Boy, we better go and take care of X, and make him happy!

And therein lies an invitation to anyone in the world who feels they have been unfairly treated, rightly or wrongly, to start setting off bombs so that well meaning politicians like Justin Trudeau, perhaps Prime Minister of Canada one day, will jump to address and resolve their concerns. If people feel that politicians will do things for them, to placate their anger if they use terrorism as a communications tool then more of them will do it.

I know he doesn't mean to be encouraging terrorism, but that's what he's doing.

A second thing.

He is also suggesting there might be a reasonableness to the demands or anger of such people. There IS no reasonable cause for murdering the innocent. No matter what their cause is, it doesn't justify this. So again, a big fail on this score.

That is not the way I see it.

First of all he makes it clear from the start that perpetrators are enemies and must be caught and brought to justice.

The second point is that we need to try and understand the motives. We need to get in the head of our enemies so that we can prevent future crimes. This does not mean appeasement as you suggest. It just means obtaining a better understanding of the problem - a pre-requisite to finding a solution. An analogy is the study of psychopaths by criminal psychologists. The search for better understanding of a crime does not at justify the crime nor does it imply appeasement.

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...