Jacob Two-Two wrote:If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.
The Liberals have a lot to be proud about in their history too. Any political party that has a long history of being in power will have had periods of corruption, even the NDP and they have only been in opposition. A lot of people have a more balanced memory of the past as evidenced by the current popularity of Trudeau and the Liberals.
See, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about. You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before.
As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file ...
I wasn't giving them an edge on the environmental file, I am saying they will accomplish as much as the NDP would in the next four years. In my view both Trudeau and Mulcair have expressed concern for the environment but neither the NDP nor the Liberals are promising transformative change beyond restoring former protections and perhaps enhancing them. Apparently the NDP does plan some sort of carbon tax/trade or equivalent thereof but that was in Dion's platform too. I am not claiming that the Liberals are superior to the NDP on the environment. I agree that Mulcair has shown that he cares deeply about the environment but he is still supporting Energy East so he is obviously willing to bend to political pressure to some extent. Maybe he will put something big in the platform but as of right now I don't see the NDP saying anything significantly different on the environment.
Exactly. "Saying" anything different. That's why you left things like real world experience and actual accomplishments out of your little nutshell, because you wouldn't want the conversation to become about "doing" instead of "saying". Mulcair has a proven record of pursuing his goals and getting things done on the environmental file. He has stuck his neck out for his principles. In contrast, Justin has no record on any file. No accomplishments in the political world of any kind beyond getting himself elected. I don't really believe that you think these men will be equally effective at protecting the environment. That's too foolish of a premise for someone as smart as yourself.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.
I don't expect a Prime Minister to be an expert in every field. That's why nominations are important. I don't want Trudeau to be a one man band like Harper. I like the way he listens to the people that he recruits as he has with regional chief Jody Wilson-Raybould concerning the transparency bill. He is building an impressive team of advisors. I agree with Trudeau's vision of Canada more than I do Mulcair's and that matters to me.
Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember? One person has a history of experience getting results on that file, and the other studied it for a few years in school. One has built the skills needed to protect Canada's environment in his long record of public service, and the other hasn't. These people are not on equal footing.
Mulcair's advantage on this file is obvious, despite the irrelevancies of Justin's family's love of nature or his closeness to a former terrible environment minister. Again, I can't buy the notion that you believe these are sound arguments.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell".
That's nothing but an excuse to make a personal attack. If the argument I present is weak then it is easy to demolish without the personal insults.
Well, I suppose you're right, but honestly Pondering, I get tired of demolishing the same old speils from you over and over, presented unchanged no matter how often they're countered. The mockery keeps me engaged. The first few times, it's interesting enough just to craft the argument, but as you approach the fourth or fifth go-round, you gotta throw in some laughs just to keep typing.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details.
"In a nutshell" also means a casual summation especially in the context of a post on a message board. A weak summation is not a valid reason for personal attacks.
No, but a summation that is blatantly misleading by leaving out any information that might be relevant to the issue is a valid reason to call someone out on being blatantly misleading.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.
Another smear statement bereft of any value.
Well, I am making an assumption about your motivations here, I'll admit, but I just can't see any other way to explain how you would think that a summation of NDP vs. Liberals on the environment should include the fact that Justin's family loves nature, and not include the experience or qualifications of either leader on this file. That's the kind of omission that's not very credible as an oversight. I think I'll be sticking with my theory.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.
Do you think your personal attacks are clever or meaningful? From my perspective you are only illustrating your own stupidity. The second sentence does not refute the first and there is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this context.
I admit my snarkiness is totally indulgent, but I feel that you earn a little ribbing with stuff like this. The second sentence doesn't refute the first, but it refutes the point you were trying to make by quoting the first, which was that Mulcair's departure was a matter of ego or ambition. I said it was a matter of conscience, and you knew exactly what I was talking about, but still quoted only the first sentence and omitted the second. Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly.
He did not resign as a result of the Mont Tremblant decision. He resigned after he was offered a lesser portfolio which he then refused following which he resigned. A perfectly reasonable choice but had he kept the environmental portfolio I don't believe he would have resigned.
Of course he wouldn't have, because he would have been making progress and getting things done. He was removed for being too effective, which wasn't what they wanted from an environment minister. Mulcair wants to get things done and make a difference. His record shows that. That's why he was a Liberal in the first place. Because he wanted to be in government where he could make real change. When it became clear they weren't going to allow that, he left. left to build an NDP Quebec movement from nothing.
From the standpoint of an opportunist, that move made no sense. From the standpoint of a guy who wanted to make real change in politics, it made perfect sense. He tried being the maverick in the mainstream party, and it didn't work. So instead he joined Layton in building a more radical party into an electoral success. A longshot, but the only shot that could give him what he wanted: a chance to have a real impact on the nation.
Jacob Two-Two wrote:If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier.
What a surprise, more smearing. People in any profession, politicians included, often switch "companies" if they percieve themselves blocked or consider themselves demoted. I do not recall Mulcair denouncing his Liberal past. You see these comments as some sort of condemnation of Mulcair but I don't see them as such because I don't see the radical difference between the parties that you seem to. I do believe that the environment is the cause closest to Mulcair's heart, but that isn't stopping him from supporting Energy East, which he must do to get elected. You could look at it the nasty way and call him a sell-out, or recognize that political reality dictates acceptance in principal of pipelines.
You could certainly do either of those things, yes. But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about why Mulcair left the Quebec Liberal government. Yes, people switch organisations. My point (that you are dancing around as usual) was that opportunists switch from positions of lower notoriety and opportunity to positions of higher notoriety and opportunity. Mulcair did the opposite, which makes him the opposite of an opportunist in that instance. It was clearly an ethical move.