Liberals - started January 28, 2015

177 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Liberals - started January 28, 2015

++++++++++++++++

NorthReport

Now you can see what a problem the Liberals are.  They stand for nothing, they stand for everything.

GO HARD LEFT, THEN GO HARD RIGHT

 

Either way, it’s veering all over the road.

The anti-terror legislation isn’t tabled, yet, so no one outside a small circle within the government actually knows what is in it. Even though I – along with Lloyd Axworthy, Bob Rae, Gen. Romeo Dallaire and many other Liberals – support the international effort against ISIS/ISIL, I’m not ready to support the government’s bill until I, you know, actually see it.

If all of this seems a bit familiar to you, it should. In 2003, Jean Chretien said “no” to Canadian involvement in George W. Bush’s misadventures in Iraq. Paul Martin objected to that, letting it be known that “Canada should be there” and Canada needed to “get over to Iraq as quickly as possible.” So, when the latter became Prime Minister, he sought to curry favour with the Americans by committing us to Kandahar. It was a costly decision.

Siding with the NDP on the war against terror in the Middle East, siding with the Conservatives on the war against terror back home: it recalls Tim Hudak’s promise to create a million jobs, and then fire 100,000 people. Among other things, that kind of politicking is confusing to voters.

On important stuff, like war and terrorism, it is important to be consistent. The Conservatives, for good or for bad, are being consistent with their values. So too the NDP, whether you agree with them or not.

The Liberals? Like I say, going from hard left to hard right isn’t a safe way to drive. It often results in you landing in a ditch.

 

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/go-hard-left-then-go-hard-right/

Pondering

People really get hung up on this right left thing. Please point me to a consistent party because neither the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP are consistently left or right. I'm grateful to have a non-ideological party whose goal is simply to serve Canadians to the best of their ability.

jas

Tony Abbott sparks leadership questions and tension in the Liberal party

When people from the Right and the Left of politics, both inside the parties and out, share the view that he is badly out of touch, he has a serious problem.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

It is a terrible copout to say you support a party precisely because it has no principles. It might make one think that you have no principles as well. The really bad news about Kinsella's article is that it looks like he is dangerously close to supporting the NDP or the Tories. Having Warren Kinsella support you is the kiss of death. Let us hope he is considering the Tories.

NorthReport

Laughing

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:
It is a terrible copout to say you support a party precisely because it has no principles. It might make one think that you have no principles as well. The really bad news about Kinsella's article is that it looks like he is dangerously close to supporting the NDP or the Tories. Having Warren Kinsella support you is the kiss of death. Let us hope he is considering the Tories.

Principles and ideology are not synonyms.

NorthReport

Good, as again it clearly shows the contrast between the right-wing Liberals and the progressive NDP. 

I guess Trudeau went to see Paul Martin and has his knuckles wrapped. He probably won't make that mistake again.

Liberals say they're open to upcoming Tory terror bill

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2015/01/28/liberals-say-theyre-open-to-upc...

 

NorthReport

And again.

Bhullar blames ‘dirty tricks’ for Liberal ballot bust

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/bhullar-blames-dirty-tricks-...

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:
It is a terrible copout to say you support a party precisely because it has no principles. It might make one think that you have no principles as well. The really bad news about Kinsella's article is that it looks like he is dangerously close to supporting the NDP or the Tories. Having Warren Kinsella support you is the kiss of death. Let us hope he is considering the Tories.

Principles and ideology are not synonyms.

But they are similar in that the Liberals have none of either.

The Liberals are a non-ideological party devoted to serving themselves. That's what the record in the real world makes clear. The party you're talking about only exists in your head.

Debater

According to this French article from Radio-Canada, the NDP is showing 'cautious support' for the Conservative anti-terrorism bill:

Appui prudent du NPD au projet de loi antiterroriste conservateur

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

https://twitter.com/RadioCanadaInfo/status/561264871904264192

NorthReport

Now we are beginning to see the real Trudeau.

63 per cent of Canadians are traitors 

Messrs. Axworthy, Rae et al. were “traitors” to the party, because they’d disagreed with the leader. That’s a quote.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/63-per-cent-of-canadians-are-traitors/

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Now we are beginning to see the real Trudeau.

63 per cent of Canadians are traitors 

Messrs. Axworthy, Rae et al. were “traitors” to the party, because they’d disagreed with the leader. That’s a quote.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/63-per-cent-of-canadians-are-traitors/

It's not a quote from Trudeau.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
According to this French article from Radio-Canada, the NDP is showing 'cautious support' for the Conservative anti-terrorism bill:

Appui prudent du NPD au projet de loi antiterroriste conservateur

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

">https://twitter.com/RadioCanadaInfo/status/561264871904264192

I would like to have seen stronger wording from the Liberals and NDP in terms of voting against this measure, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps if they "take time to analyze" then they can come back later and say, "we're voting against this bill because of dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah," and give the Opposition more political cover than to respond with, "Harper says black, we say white."

I'm sure some here will be keeping us in the loop, and the crux of the matter is how the parties vote, which I don't think either party has made a firm committment one way or another. Unfortunately it's a moot point, as the Conservatives have the votes to pass this on their own anyways.

NorthReport

How do you know?

It definitely was a Liberal talking with another Liberal.

Are you saying Trudeau is not the boss and doesn't vet things like Harper does? Laughing

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

How do you know?

It definitely was a Liberal talking with another Liberal.

Are you saying Trudeau is not the boss and doesn't vet things like Harper does? Laughing

I know because Kinsella said so.

When I told one of the advisers to Justin Trudeau why I supported the International effort against ISIS/ISIL – and when I pointed out that I agreed with right-wing extremist warmongers like Barack Obama, Lloyd Axworthy and Bob Rae – I was told Messrs. Axworthy, Rae et al. were “traitors” to the party, because they’d disagreed with the leader. That’s a quote. - See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/63-per-cent-of-canadians-are-traitors/...

Kinsella was having a casual conversation with a Liberal advisor who he hasn't named who made the statement. He was expressing his own views not the views of the party or of the leader. No, Trudeau does not vet every word every Liberal says.

Nor did he say that Canadians who support fighting ISIL are all traitors. The unnamed Liberal was obviously referring to Liberals not Canadians in general.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:
According to this French article from Radio-Canada, the NDP is showing 'cautious support' for the Conservative anti-terrorism bill:

Appui prudent du NPD au projet de loi antiterroriste conservateur

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

">https://twitter.com/RadioCanadaInfo/status/561264871904264192

I would like to have seen stronger wording from the Liberals and NDP in terms of voting against this measure, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps if they "take time to analyze" then they can come back later and say, "we're voting against this bill because of dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah," and give the Opposition more political cover than to respond with, "Harper says black, we say white."

I'm sure some here will be keeping us in the loop, and the crux of the matter is how the parties vote, which I don't think either party has made a firm committment one way or another. Unfortunately it's a moot point, as the Conservatives have the votes to pass this on their own anyways.

Because the Conservatives have a majority both Trudeau and Mulcair will play their cards close to the chest on anything that could backfire on them. Hence their lack of clarity on prostitution and this bill. There is no clear win on either.