We can choose a small Canada—a diminished, mean, and petty country. A Canada that lets down its citizens at home and fails them abroad. A Canada that’s absent on the world stage.
Can someone tell me what this means besides the obviously crude rhetoric?
If and when this election happens I certainly hope any debate doesn't devolve into flag pins, birth certificates and the like...
So you're OK with an American citizen being the PM of Canada? I couldn't care less where someone is born, but to be PM of Canada while a card carrying citizen of another country is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatieff
I also remain an American citizen and I'm proud of that, too. I'll never give it up because it's an important part of who I am.
So you're OK with an American citizen being the PM of Canada? I couldn't care less where someone is born, but to be PM of Canada while a card carrying citizen of another country is absurd.
He holds dual citizenship, does he not? As long as he's a citizen of Canada, I'm fine with whatever other citizenship he may have as well.
Please tell me how this would effect his job performance if he were elected cause I really don't see a problem with this.
He holds dual citizenship, does he not? As long as he's a citizen of Canada, I'm fine with whatever other citizenship he may have as well.
Please tell me how this would effect his job performance if he were elected cause I really don't see a problem with this.
Not that I really care much about what citizenship our PM has (as long as he's a Canadian) but the US does not recognize dual citizenship within the US, if he's there, he is a US citizen bar-none.
Naturally, there will always be people who will blindly follow a party and leader without looking at who they are and what their plans for the country are. You can stick as many labels as you want to political leaders, but in the end, you had better make sure those BS arguments have no impact on your final decision.
This election is about what values and ideals you most adhere to. What direction you want the country to take. Taking a blindly partisan stand is damaging to democracy.
I strongly disagree with Harper's vision for Canada, but I acknowledge that he has done good things. I like his commitment to the military, this is one of the biggest issues I have with the federal government. Our military has suffered greatly because of budget cuts and a lack of emphasis on its importance.
Our international reputation has been declining for the past few decades, and it has been getting a whole lot worse under Harper's direction. We used to be a country that was admired for 'punching above its weight', we were leaders on the world stage. We stood for a lot of things, but now we dont seem to stand for anything. Pearson would be saddened to see how small we have become... how we have no ambition.
I love how Harper has started to aggressively stake our claim in the north, I believe this is vital going forward. I hate how we have been acting like the Edmonton Oilers in living in the glory of our past commitment to peacekeeping and a strong, worldwide diplomatic corps. We have become an afterthought.
I do not like where we have been heading, and I do not like Harper's vision of Canada.
Ignatieff said this:
While that is true, Harper is not the only one to blame. We have been heading down this road since Mulroney and Chretien. Chretien tried to make a commitment to providing Canadian leadership in Africa, but it was largely for show... his group gave out Canadian flags to kids in Africa, then took them back as they left. That pretty much sums up our attitude towards international affairs. Its all smoke and mirrors.
There is no substance, no ambition, no optimistic vision for the country.
Ignatieff has shown to me that he recognizes this, and has convinced me that he will work to change that.
I can think of no better time to bring in a new, broader, more ambitious vision for the country than right before the world comes to our doorstep in Vancouver.
Ignatieff has said that he would not only increase our military presence in the arctic, but also greatly improve infrastructure. He has preached over and over again that he does not believe in the politics of division. He has not talked badly about Alberta or talk about the mythical 'Alberta tar sands' that the far left keeps warning us about. Many people have criticised him for standing up for the Athabasca oil sands, but it shows that he will tone down the partisan rhetoric and work with the provinces. He knows the best he could hope for in Alberta is one seat in Edmonton, yet he still knows not to play division politics against Alberta... even if it makes him less popular in the east.
These elections keep happening for one reason... and that is that two thirds of Canada do not want a right wing government. There is a left majority in parliament, and there is no way Harper is going to keep them happy. He tried to force his agenda through parliament, and it ended up almost causing another election just a couple months after the last one. The only way Parliament will be stable for a few years is if the left is in power. That is the bottom line. If Canada would have accepted a Right wing majority, it would have been when Dion was the leader.
As for the economy, Ignatieff is not saying Harper is responsible for the recession, he is saying he is not the leader we need right now... this is what he is actually saying:
I wish there was a thumbs down option. I disagree with almost everything you have posted here.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jolinar of malkshor For This Useful Post:
Not that I really care much about what citizenship our PM has (as long as he's a Canadian) but the US does not recognize dual citizenship within the US, if he's there, he is a US citizen bar-none.
The U.S. Government acknowledges that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause.
They have it and recognize it but they encourage people not to use it.
Also, I believe by taking the PM job he would probably lose his American citizenship so the point would be moot anyway. Here are some ways you can lose your American citizenship. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizens...nship_778.html
Quote:
accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
Also of interest from that page:
Quote:
Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship.
Jim Prentice employs some fulltime staff already. He's already got his eye on the prize. This is maddening because I think this whole, "you've only won minorities, get the F out" attitude by the Conservative party can only really be sucessfully employed by the natural governing party. If you're the Tories simply being in government in a country as far left as Canada should be considered a sucess. The Conservatives are only in power now because Stephen Harper is viewed by the public as a stronger leader than a bumbling former academic, a dithering ambitious shmuck and a grandstanding idiot. I don't see how trading in someone who has a public perception as being a strong leader for an arrogrant ambitious type keeps the Conservative party above the competition leaderwise, especially when the Liberals traded in a Bumbling academic for a much more well-spoken one.
If and when this election happens I certainly hope any debate doesn't devolve into flag pins, birth certificates and the like...
Neither do I! For me it's calling an election when one isn't needed. Calling an election with the intention to just screw around and cause rifts in the conservative party, calling an election when the economy is showing potential signs of recovery. The whole "if I lose I'm going to where I want to be" just annoys the crap out of me and is the final straw that just pisses me off.
Neither do I! For me it's calling an election when one isn't needed.
That's what I said LAST election. You know. The one where Harper broke his own promise to stick to a fixed schedule of elections. But I'm sure you will find an excuse for that one.....
It's like hockey. When the guy from your team does something, it's just fine. But when a guy from the other team does something, it should be punishable by death.
The Following User Says Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
Just to inject some humor in this battle of ideologies...
I found this terrific website listing all the silly, stupid things Canada's political parties have done or supported over the years since confederation..
1976 - John Turner resigns from the Trudeau Cabinet and works for a Toronto law firm until 1984, when Trudeau resigns and he sees a chance to make his second run for leadership of the Liberal Party. He wins leadership, instantly becomes Canada's 17th Prime Minister, and calls a federal election within four days which will see the election of a Conservative Government. Turner resigns from political life again after losing the 1988 federal election. Like Brian Mulroney before him and Jean Chrétien after, Turner demonstrates by 'coming back' to his party at an opportune time, that while most of our leaders claim that they're primary interest is 'serving the country,' there comes a point where they're really only interested in 'serving' it from the top.
Credit where it's due, Joe Clark continued to serve both his party and his country long after his tenure as Prime Minister, despite knowing he would never hold that position again.
Quote:
1979 - Conservative Finance Minister John Crosbie introduces, his "short term pain for long term gain" budget, which includes an 18 cent per gallon gas tax despite campaign promises to cut taxes to stimulate the economy. This leads to the defeat of the Joe Clark minority government in a 139-133 vote of non-confidence - with five Social Credit MPs abstaining, three Conservatives unable to attend, and two Liberals arriving from hospitals by ambulance in order to vote.
With less than 9 months in power, Clark's declared intention of running the minority as if it were a majority proves less than successful. More recent history will show that it's a tactic that's only possible when you're up against an opposition that doesn't want an election.
Quote:
2009 - Always willing to demonstrate their willingness to suffer for the good of the country, while at the same time showcasing their ...unique... sense of humour, the $155,400.00 per year Members of Parliament (who were actually in the House of Commons for an exhausting 13 days between June 2008 and January 2009), acknowledged the 50% fall in the price of gasoline during the previous six months by cutting their personal vehicle travel expense allowance from 55 cents per kilometer to ... well, 54.9 cents.
Despite their heroic sacrifice, the one tenth of one cent cut still leaves the MPs' travel allowance some five cents per kilometer over the maximum rate the Canada Revenue Agency allows any other Canadian citizen as a business expense deduction.
While the Liberals should not expect to receive favourable public opinion for getting us into another election, the CPC has brought all this on themselves with their continued hyper-partisanship and disregard for ministerial competence, as evidenced by the several scandals involving Conservative cabinet ministers.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. Despite partially helping the economy grow and reinforced Canada's position in foreign affairs, to a certain extent(claiming and defending our sovereignty up north, and beefing up military presence in Afghanistan) most Canadians do not feel he has done enough to get re-elected with a majority government. And seeing how partisan politics in Ottawa have gone worse during Harper's regime....
I don't know if you can classify the current Conservative government's missteps as "scandals" based on the bar established by the previous Liberal governments.
Your second paragraph basically states that despite all the positive things the Conservative government has accomplished, despite accomplishing those in a minority government position, not enough has been done to warrant a majority. In other words, nothing they can do will ever justify a majority in your eyes.
I'm restating for comprehension purposes, not to put words in your mouth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I was chatting to a senior policy advisor in Ottawa yesterday.
Basically the strategy the liberals are pulling is as such:
Ignatieff gets a freebie loss. He can have an election and lose once and the party nor public give him a hard time about it. So they do this, he loses or just wins.
If he loses Harper gets a minority AGAIN!
This causes infighting in the conservative ranks. Harper having had 4 tries now and 4 minorities is done or should be.
Problems arise in conservative party. Leadership stuff begins with Prentice and Some other guy I can't remember name. Both are polar opposites and have roots dating back to the two different parties. Mess ensues and the conservatives are a wreck.
If Ignatieff wins. Then who cares (other than conservatives obviously).
To me, its a really bad strategy and an ill timed one as well. first and foremost, the Liberals have stalled after their goodwill period or honeymoon period for changing leaders. Ignatieff hasn't done a good job of laying out any kind of vision for this country, and I think for the most part his negative sniping is starting to fall on deaf ears.
The Liberal fund raising effort has improved, but I'm not convinced that they have the money needed to fight an election this quickly, whereas the Conservatives have a huge war chest.
Any good will that the Liberal's have is going to shatter if they trigger an election.
Especially with signs of an economic turnaround. I think that the Conservatives did a good job of saving jobs in the auto industry in Ontario. The Khadr and the passport stuff aren't enough to cause a downfall of a government, and it would be stupid to think that those two issues would cause a dynamic shift in votes. The Liberal's can point to the deficit caused by the Conservatives, the Conservatives can point out that the deficit was caused by the Conservatives working with the Liberal's to keep the government in place.
Meanwhile, The NDP will probably go after the Liberals extremely hard over the 79 compromises that the Liberals made with the Conservative government where the Liberal's really won nothing.
The Conservatives can hedge the Liberal EI plan and they've already started to punch holes in it. They can also point out that the Liberal's don't seem to be willing to wait for the recommendations of that multiparty committee.
The Environment? This election has to be about the Economy Stupid, and I don't see where the Conservatives have done an especially poor job of handling it thus far.
Your right, we can see a minority either way, but my guy tells me that the undecided Canadian right now, that has no interest in an election, might change their minds and vote out of anger against the Liberals.
You can talk about rifts in the Conservative party, but I think that yesterdays statement by Ignatieff shows that there might be a significant rift in the Liberal party between those who wanted elections like Bob Rae and those who didn't.
Even if Harper wins a minority, he's not going anywhere, he'll serve his term and oversee the succession before the next election 13 months from now.
But if Harper wins a majority, then Ignatieff falls, its that simple, he has a freebee election to lose as long as he shows gains, if he shows losses or gives the Harper Government a ride to ultimate power, we'll see another Liberal Leadership convention in the next year.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Dear lord... I hope this type of garbage doesn't catch on (again) when the election campaigning starts. If any of the parties take the high road and simply debate the issues rather than resorting to petty/irrelevant personal attacks and perhaps even tries to work together with other parties, they've got my vote.
The Following User Says Thank You to Phaneuf3 For This Useful Post:
So you're OK with an American citizen being the PM of Canada? I couldn't care less where someone is born, but to be PM of Canada while a card carrying citizen of another country is absurd.
Can I assume that in actuality you find this sort of nativist nonsense despicable and you just forgot the green text?
You'd better hope Harper has got better weapons than that in his arsenal. That pretty much defines "weak."
I'll add this: Harper's panicked ad campaign accused Ignatieff of being "American." But it's Harper who is injecting the American rhetorical style into our politics--attack ads that are devoid of content, making nakedly jingoistic emotional appeals in an attempt to grab the moral low ground before anyone else can get there. That defines everything that is wrong with American political culture.
Let's remember that we're better than that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Turn about is fair play. Libs once accused Cons of wanting to be Americans. Cons are now accusing the Lib leader of being American.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
