[Always4Iggy]

Firecat Firecat:

inability to move on for the benefit of the Party and the Country - who matter a hell of a lot more than a presumptious professor.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Sure I will, but you have to convince me, as a Dion man, that you ARE moving for the benefit of Party and country.

You see firecat, (and for that matter, Bluesbud and princess Lily,) not everyone here is a newbie where politics is concerned. A call for loyalty or unity is almost usually suspect.

Sometime when you get down to reading, you will come across the old quotation:

$1:

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels

which quotation, my friends has proved so correct that anyone, absolutely anyone, has to prove first that he is NOT a scoundrel pretending to be a patriot.

So that applies to you, bluesbud and princess lily. Is it an accident that you have both Liberal and NDP flags? Is it an accident that your strongest supporter is the conservative USCAdad?

Why was it so easy to switch your loyaly from Kennedy to Dion? Is it because loyalty has no meaning for you, as a lot of scorn for ethics you have expressed in this thread?

Only you can answer that, but you are avoiding an answer.

Before we decide who is moving for the benefit of the Party, we need to know WHICH party we are talking about, so you need to go back to my unanswered question:

Firecat Firecat:

This is the forum for Liberal supporters.

Always4iggy Always4iggy:

What, according to you, is the difference between Liberal and Conservative?

Firecat Firecat:

Sorry, kid. Not interested in engaging in a pointless discussion with you.

To which I would now add:

"or for that matter NDP?"

and which extended question I would challenge all three of you with (but please not USCAdad who will please excuse people who do not sit on their brains,)

So, ladies and gentlemen of the board, let me present party loyalists Firecat, Bluesbud and Princess!

[Always4Iggy]

BluesBud BluesBud:

Oh my Chris nothing more to say. You said you "are talking about PROCESS and not RESULT."

Yet in the short time you have joined this community you have opened two threads that experess your sour grapes about a convention now over.

Do you have anything positive to say about The Liberal Party (your party) You are a member I guess. If you participated in the convention....right?

My dear Bluesbud, it is clear from your reply that you have an intellectual problem with the difference between 'process' and 'result' though I helpfully put them in capitals so you would not miss what I was pointing out.

In another post just now, I have challenged you to say something positive about the Liberal Party, since you have, to the best of my knowledge, never done so!

But I just saw your reply and I think it was too early to ask you that. First we will have to ask you to define process and results in the context of our leadership selection process.

I hope you will be grateful for the easier question, compared to the one for Catface and Princess

[Firecat]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

First we will have to ask you to define process and results in the context of our leadership selection process.

You rely too much on others to frame your questions for you or find clarity in your arguments.

Also, Name-calling is more suited to the sandbox than a political forum for grown-ups. It is conventional that people use others' screen-names as they are, without significant modification, out of politeness. That courtesy has been extended to you.

[Always4Iggy]

Firecat Firecat:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

First we will have to ask you to define process and results in the context of our leadership selection process.

You rely too much on others to frame your questions for you or find clarity in your arguments.

Also, Name-calling is more suited to the sandbox than a political forum for grown-ups. It is conventional that people use others' screen-names as they are, without significant modification, out of politeness. That courtesy has been extended to you.

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude, just casual.

I will be careful to use your screen name henceforth.

I think the question of framing my question is interesting, but I personally find it better to have a discussion move interactively. Here is how it goes:

a. Presume that your readers are quick on the uptake and also that they are familiar with the topic. In this case, it is the leadership selection process.

b. Answer questions only as required.

I think this is a good method as it avoids 'talking down' to people, encourages participation, and is efficient in making progress. If you check the exchanges with Delwin, you will find that in just a few posts, an enormous ground has been covered.

I think the progress was a bit less with you and Lily, and Bluesbud but though I take responsibility, you three should consider your own attitudes, where you look at the person, rather than the message. In logic, this is a fallacy of 'ad hominem' where you think of WHO says what rather than WHAT they say. Delwin focuses on the message, and the communication is better.

But to get back to the point, well, you have an opportunity now to frame your issues and questions, your task is harder than Lily's but only because you are more forthcoming and open on what your political camp is.

Let me frame the questions again for you:

a. Why are you both Liberal and NDP?

b. What influenced you to switch loyalties from Kennedy to Dion?

c. In your broader analysis, what is the difference between Liberal Conservative and NDP?

[Firecat]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Firecat Firecat:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

First we will have to ask you to define process and results in the context of our leadership selection process.

You rely too much on others to frame your questions for you or find clarity in your arguments.

Also, Name-calling is more suited to the sandbox than a political forum for grown-ups. It is conventional that people use others' screen-names as they are, without significant modification, out of politeness. That courtesy has been extended to you.

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude, just casual.

I will be careful to use your screen name henceforth.

I think the question of framing my question is interesting, but I personally find it better to have a discussion move interactively. Here is how it goes:

a. Presume that your readers are quick on the uptake and also that they are familiar with the topic. In this case, it is the leadership selection process.

b. Answer questions only as required.

I think this is a good method as it avoids 'talking down' to people, encourages participation, and is efficient in making progress. If you check the exchanges with Delwin, you will find that in just a few posts, an enormous ground has been covered.

I think the progress was a bit less with you and Lily, and Bluesbud but though I take responsibility, you three should consider your own attitudes, where you look at the person, rather than the message. In logic, this is a fallacy of 'ad hominem' where you think of WHO says what rather than WHAT they say. Delwin focuses on the message, and the communication is better.

But to get back to the point, well, you have an opportunity now to frame your issues and questions, your task is harder than Lily's but only because you are more forthcoming and open on what your political camp is.

Let me frame the questions again for you:

a. Why are you both Liberal and NDP?

b. What influenced you to switch loyalties from Kennedy to Dion?

c. In your broader analysis, what is the difference between Liberal Conservative and NDP?

Needing others to state your question clearly is merely indicative of disorganized thinking and bad presentation, speaking or writing skills. Presenting data with no introductory clear statement of premise puts the onus on us to wade through your purported supporting data and try to guess what point you are trying to make. The discussion with Delwin only took off because I finally managed to distill your meanderings to a clear premise. Expecting others to do your homework for you mid presentation is lazy and gets a failing grade. It was like reading random scribblings in place of a term paper.

Your posts on this subject were disorganized and ill-considered. You thus immediately appeared out of your league and ill-prepared to express yourself in this particular sub-forum. That caused a lot of impatience (from me), quite apart from your rather indefensible points of view which I consider harmful to the Party with the sole purpose of sowing division. Amid those disorganized thoughts , your posts alternated between juvenile insults, and presumptuous sycophancy. At one point, while your point of departure was that somehow that joint fund-raisers were somehow unethical and that some improper deals were made you suddenly recast your argument as a policy discussion between you and me. That was not true; I had in fact dismissed you as naive and inexperienced in the least, more likely merely a youthful sore loser, but most likely a crank.

Don't flatter yourself that I consider you a peer in this forum yet. you've a lot of respect to earn before that ever happens and you've not started out well with all the name-calling.

I am willing , though, to give you a chance by answering your stated questions.

a) I fly both Liberal and NDP flags by my name because I am a very left-leaning Liberal and I share particular convictions with the NDP (particularly in the realm of higher education, enough that I have worked for them and advocate a lot of NDP priorities within the Liberal Party. I am a fiscal moderate however, and my stands on various issues reflect those convictions. You will notice this particular combination of Party flags flying beside others' names too. Not surprisingly, they and I agree on a lot of things.

As a moderate on economic policy and a military supporter it is often not uncommon to see me here agreeing with certain Conservatives. I don't demonize the other parties except in fun. Ever. I have great respect for politics as a profession and an art and politicians in general. I believe it is a noble service and one which demands great sacrifice and I do not treat it or its practitioners lightly. I have little patience for ill-informed opinions., though not informed opposing opinions.


b) The mere fact that I fly both Liberal and NDP flags pretty much explains my support for Kennedy and then Dion, and why I am a Liberal Party member in the first place. Because ours is a pretty secure Liberal riding, I have sometimes voted Green to try to boost their per-vote funding entitlement. I am of Quebec descent and am a federalist, so Dion earned a lot of my respect. My particular desire to see universal state-funded higher education made Kennedy's appeal that much stronger for me.
I switched allegiance away from Kennedy for the purposes of the convention because he dropped out. I then accepted Dion as my preffered choice of the remaining candidates - without wasting time complaining that Kennedy was out. Now my interestis e focussed on winning the next election. I will be active for the Party because, secure Liberal seat or not, this will be no time for strategic voting to help my second choice party.

[Always4Iggy]

Firecat Firecat:

You rely too much on others to frame your questions for you or find clarity in your arguments.

Needing others to state your question clearly is merely indicative of disorganized thinking and bad presentation, speaking or writing skills. Presenting data with no introductory clear statement of premise puts the onus on us to wade through your purported supporting data and try to guess what point you are trying to make. The discussion with Delwin only took off because I finally managed to distill your meanderings to a clear premise. Expecting others to do your homework for you mid presentation is lazy and gets a failing grade. It was like reading random scribblings in place of a term paper.

Your posts on this subject were disorganized and ill-considered. You thus immediately appeared out of your league and ill-prepared to express yourself in this particular sub-forum. That caused a lot of impatience (from me), quite apart from your rather indefensible points of view which I consider harmful to the Party with the sole purpose of sowing division. Amid those disorganized thoughts , your posts alternated between juvenile insults, and presumptuous sycophancy. At one point, while your point of departure was that somehow that joint fund-raisers were somehow unethical and that some improper deals were made you suddenly recast your argument as a policy discussion between you and me. That was not true; I had in fact dismissed you as naive and inexperienced in the least, more likely merely a youthful sore loser, but most likely a crank.

Don't flatter yourself that I consider you a peer in this forum yet. you've a lot of respect to earn before that ever happens and you've not started out well with all the name-calling.

I am willing , though, to give you a chance by answering your stated questions.

Sorry to poop your party, my dear firecat, but before you talk about who is who's peer, you need to check today's 'Globe and Mail' which has given a FULL PAGE on page A5 headlined 'Dion fund raiser leaves liberals red-faced'.

If you can get hold of it, you will see that it covers EXACTLY what Delwin discussed with me, and that on every point Dion has accepted that I am right and you are wrong! Even my suggestion for sharing the proceeds with all the defeated candidates has been accepted!

So my advice to you, Blues Bud and the princess is:

a. History shapes the future. You cannot look ahead without looking back.

b. Playing stupid is not always the best way to be loyal.

And my style of presentation works. It raises interest, and among the 800 viewers, important Liberal party officials understood what you failed to, and acted upon it.

Lastly, your unethical political ideas are out of date, Honesty is now the best policy in the Liberal Party!

Of course, I owe it to Delwin for having asked the right questions and helped me keep the topic going perfectly!

[BluesBud]

Firecat, well put, and very clearly stated. (even if "someone else" says otherwise)

This is my last posting in this thread. I think I have made my point and I do not feel the need to make my alliances and loyalties known here.

The only point I need to make known is that I am a card carrying Liberal. I have no influence in the party but I do have a few good well-placed friends in and out of the political arena. I do not like to talk about this in these forums, as this is my business and none of anybody else’s. If Always4Iggy has any political ambitions he may have to re-evaluate his choices. With that unyielding attitude he will not go very far in any field of endeavor. You just cannot name call and call it debate. (Contrary to what you see in The House of Commons)

Just a word to the…. well…not so wise, you best learn to deal with people better in any field. You never know who you are talking to. You will find you will have a hard go of it otherwise. Regardless you have left an impression on me. I have noted your name in your profile. If in my circles it happens to pop up, I WILL take note. Best of luck Chris, ….oh and have a very happy Christmas.

[Always4Iggy]

Firecat, you don't even have to go and search for a copy of the globe and mail, the article is now on their website, follow this URL:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National

[Firecat]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Firecat, you don't even have to go and search for a copy of the globe and mail, the article is now on their website, follow this URL:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National

We await your apology for your accusations of impropriety and going off half-cocked on a tantrum before the situation could be resolved.
Nothing indicates anything was improper but that Dion is taking (wise) political steps to unify - as I said he likely would if he were asked.
Perhaps now you can put stop looking for grievances where none need exist.

[Always4Iggy]

Firecat Firecat:

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Firecat, you don't even have to go and search for a copy of the globe and mail, the article is now on their website, follow this URL:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National

We await your apology for your accusations of impropriety and going off half-cocked on a tantrum before the situation could be resolved.
Nothing indicates anything was improper but that Dion is taking (wise) political steps to unify - as I said he likely would if he were asked.
Perhaps now you can put stop looking for grievances where none need exist.

Accusations of impropreity: Well, Dion and Grafstein have admitted it! So why should I apologise?

Half-cocked on a tantrum: Well, that is your opinion. According to me, I did a splendid job of it.

Before the situation could be resolved: It was publicised by me, and detailed by me and Delwin, and taken up by party official and the losing candidates (except Michael who is above all this ) and was resolved not only because of me, but according to the solution I proposed, namely, having organised the event, there is no sense in cancelling it, but share the proceeds with all candidates, do not give it just to Kennedy.

Sorry, Firecat, but the candidates who protested, the party officials who listened to them, and the organisers of the event have all admitted that it all started with their sending copies of my postings made right here to each other on their blackberries.

So get down from your high horse, and be more friendly. You may have been wrong, but then, a cat has nine lives, does it not!

[OnTheIce]

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

When Dion was elected and went up to speak, his first words were, 'Let's get ready for the election' or something to that effect.

Ominously, I received a reminder in today's mail. One Jonathan Naymark appeals to me as follow:

$1:

Please see the attached invite for an exciting fundraising event held in
support of Stephan Dion, leader of the official opposition, as well as
Gerard Kennedy. The event is being hosted by Senator Grafstein.

Thanks,
Jonathan Naymark
Volunteer & Fundraising Coordinator
Gerard Kennedy Campaign/ Campagne de Gerard Kennedy

and just in case I have not received the material sent yesterday, he tells me that Senator Gerry Grafstein, 'invites' me to attend a fund raiser for Dion-Kennedy at the University Club of Toronto on Dec 19. I would have to pay $500, but he helpfully tells me that I would get 350 back from the tax man!

I wonder at the situation the election of Dion has got us into. Why is Dion raising funds to pay for Kennedy's expenses? Did Kennedy really find Dion a kindred soul, or was there an understanding about costs with Kennedy and Martha? From the above, it looks like the latter. So let us consider how each faction stands after the election.


Dion-Kennedy-Martha
Raised per delegate $492.08
Borrowed per delegate $513.65


Rae-Volpe-Brison-Dryden
Raised per delegate $1126.95
Borrowed per delegate $1064.94


Ignatieff
Raised per delegate $701.16
Borrowed per delegate $129.87


Interestingly, Ignatieff came within 200 votes of the win with a total expenditure of only $831 per delegate, as against Dion's faction based victory at a cost of $1,005.74. Rae, of course spent without any thought, and reached a figure that is a staggering $2,191.89 per delegate!

Be that as it may, what is omnious to me are two factors:

a. The first move to pay off Kennedy has begun, thanks to Gerry Grafstein. Kennedy is the first beneficiary of the new 'sponsorship'

b. Rae, for being neutral in the last round, has been promised unspecified help, including a ministership, and - - - also borrowing 'sponsorship'.

By the time Dion has won over the Kennedy and Rae factions, the total payback will be a staggering 2.2 million dollars. The figures are not updated perfectly, and I think it could reach 3 million dollars.

The 3 million dollar figure is ironic in more ways than one:

a. 3 million is the figure that the outgoing Liberal Leadership has been able to set aside as a result of frugal and careful management.

b. 3 million was the entire cost of the convention!

c. 3 million is being raised using the tax credits of people. If Harper calls an election, it WILL JUST NOT be available for election contributions!

The Liberal Party needs to take a view on whether it is corrupt for an elected leader to raise money for defeated candidates who joined him.

The Liberal Party needs to remove the back door entry of moneybags into the election.

Remember again, what it means:

Delegates means the support of Liberals on Super Weekend.

Raised means the support of small contributors.

Borrowed means the influence of moneybags in the election.

Now compare Iggy's borrowings of $129 per Super Weekend delegate with the staggering 513.65 borrowed by the Dion faction! Iggy, we can see had the best mix of raised and borrowed funds compared to his support on Super Weekend! The Dion faction had to borrow an incredible 4 times as much as Iggy, PER DELEGATE, to get ahead of him by merely a 230 vote lead.

I do not think that Dion would allow a fair and square system.

Just wanted to make sure this post stayed at the top. Where the resident moonbat takes a few jabs at his own party.

[hurley_108]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Just wanted to make sure this post stayed at the top. Where the resident moonbat takes a few jabs at his own party.

That's cause you're a forum rule breaking freeper.

[evad54]

Poor poor Diyawn is going to help Harper win the next election. Then Stevy boy can take his French passport and go live in France away from decent one citizenship Canadians.