November 8, 2006

Call Me Confused...Bob The Hypocrite

Michel C. Auger has done us all a favor

To Ed King, I know you say distinct society and nation are not the same thing. Bob disagrees.

"Question: do you think that Quebec constitutes a nation?Answer: Yeah. Nation, people, distinct society. It’s all the same. It’s just words. It’s a set of words. It means that you recognize the distinctiveness of the collectivity of Quebec. It is something we should have done in 1985 in Meech and in 1992 with Charlottetown. And something we should be doing."

«There is a realistic chance that we shall face yet another referendum in Quebec. We have been sleepwalking a bit on this, and will have to wake up. Is a break unimaginable? Unfortunately, it is not. But it would be a tragedypainful and harmful to all. We have to do everything we can to make sure itdoes not happen.»

Bob's solution is to do nothing and attack Michael Ignatieff for daring say what Bob has said as recently as 3 months ago. Oh Bob you are trapped in a lie.

19 Commentaires:

Blogger Liberal Pebbles a dit...

As much as you push Bob to do this, the fact is Party Members, and delegates in polling have said they are overwhelmingly opposed to this resolution.

We all know Bob is a Hypocrite, he did come from a party where he continually lambasted us, but now is converted.

The nation resolution will not pass. It is up to the 'experts' that came up with this gem to figure out a solution now, that doesn't envolve basically blackmailing the rest of the party into accepting it.

11/08/2006 1:49 p.m.  
Blogger anybody but iggy a dit...

Call me confused...Iggy the Hypocrite.
"opening the constitution is hard...but we have to do it!"
Check his "Agenda for Nation-Building" - it's in there, too!
But now he's saying he never mentioned the constitution, yada yada yada.

11/08/2006 2:02 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

im not blackmailing anybody

altho, I do warn of dire electoral consequences if the resolution fails...i can refer to just about every major francophone newspaper.

it is not blackmail to say we are in trouble if some people don't wake up. Need I remind you the NDP passed a similar resolution at their convention this past september. This is hardly a new concept.

11/08/2006 3:32 p.m.  
Blogger Kyle G. Olsen a dit...

Dire electoral consequences? Do you mean the 20 seats we will loose in suburban Ontario if we adopt such a position?

11/08/2006 4:01 p.m.  
Blogger Youppi1981 a dit...

You and Auger have taken his quote out of context. Bob went on to say that it may be too difficult to open the consitution, exactly what he said in September at which point Ignatieff said he did not agree with candidates who say it is too difficult, we "must" do it.

11/08/2006 5:02 p.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

dire electoral consequences??? is that the ten seats in montreal??? or is it the majority gov't we will be giving harper on a silver platter if we adopt this resolution???

it may not be blackmail...but it sure sounds like it. at the very least, it is a coercive fallacious argument. not that an iggy supporter employing "coercive methods" is that surprising. isn't it part of the campaign platform? "oh, you don't want to support this resolution eh??? put the hood on his head and strap the electrodes to his testicles, and we'll see how opposed to the quebec nation he is".

11/08/2006 5:33 p.m.  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

ruby dhalla was just on don newman saying that iggy has NEVER proposed opening the constitution to recognize quebec??? oops, i must be insane, cause i thought i read it in his campaign literature and heard him say it numerous times. my mistake, right ruby?

11/08/2006 5:37 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

That old saying about ducks (if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, it most likely is a duck) comes to mind.

Using words like dire electoral consequences etc. sure sounds, looks and walks like a blackmailing duck to The Cat.

Cease and desist, Befuddled One. Your twists and turns on this issue are comical but nonsensical.

That Quebec motion is dangerous to the Liberal Party. It should be withdrawn, or amended to say expressly that any task force considering what "nation" means and whether the LPC should consider calling Quebec and other groups or provinces nations, has no right to recommend any constitutional change.

Then let's focus on winning power.

11/08/2006 5:39 p.m.  
Blogger Ed King a dit...

"To Ed King, I know you say distinct society and nation are not the same thing. Bob disagrees."

So be it. I retract my defense of Bob Rae. However, I stand by my criticisms of the nation resolution and your historical revisionism.

11/08/2006 6:09 p.m.  
Blogger s.b. a dit...

Yes Antonio you could be called confused but not because of Bob Rae because you are willing ot say or do anything ot support a candidate who is untenable. Stop threatening us by the way. We have to do nothing! This motion will die at convention.

11/08/2006 6:19 p.m.  
Blogger anybody but iggy a dit...

First, Canuckistan -
Don't put much stock in anything that Ruby Dhalla says. This so-called "Dr." (chiropractor) and failed beauty queen only has a seat because she sucked up to Martin for so long that he dumped a Chreteinite to give her a fixed seat in a re-designed electoral border.

Second, Antonio -
You say you are not blackmailing anybody, then you go on and blackmail. Just like how Iggy always says "let's be clear" before he tries to say that what everyone thinks he said actually meant the opposite.
Libs like Turner and Martin (whom you profess to despise), have always stunk in QC.
Libs who take a strong federalist side (Trudeau, Chretein) win.
You and LaPierre and all the nationalist muckrakers are just trying to make trouble and advance your own careers.

It's the same thing EVERY time - we are all getting along until someone comes along and says that we all have issues with each other. QC is working fine, and then some moron says that it's not working, it's incomplete, etc.

Except this time the morons aren't seps, it's YOU and Iggy, so-called Liberals.

As for warning of dire electoral consequences, I direct you to a recent EKOS poll. We will lose big EVERYWHERE if this resolution is adopted. You should try reading an English paper once in awhile.

Unless the party drops this resolution, we are fucked.

Thanks a lot.
- or maybe you cannot hear me over all your booing???

11/08/2006 10:19 p.m.  
Blogger anybody but iggy a dit...

"Need I remind you the NDP passed a similar resolution at their convention this past september. This is hardly a new concept."

Interesting how you now use the NDP as a great example, but when you and your little friends were sceaming it at Bob Rae at the Council, it seemed to have REALLY negative undertones.

11/08/2006 10:21 p.m.  
Blogger propatria a dit...

I wanna know how so many people can vote for saying "Quebec is a nation" when its obvious there is wide disagreement on what that even means. How about including a damn definition in your resolution, would that have been so hard?

11/08/2006 10:43 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

11/08/2006 10:59 p.m.  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/08/2006 11:16 p.m.  
Blogger Liberal Pebbles a dit...

NDP's support for this position has put them into the situation of incredible electoral looses in Quebec. I have proof, they won no seats.

Your proof Antonio isn't proof. My proof is proof.

11/09/2006 12:48 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

And that's a good proof, because it's proven!

That's why it's so odd and out of character for usually insightful commentators like Chantal Hebert to say:

"If it's passed it probably won't raise the Liberals way up in the polls in Quebec. If it's defeated though, I guess the Liberals can go and talk to the NDP about how it feels to continue getting seven and ten percent in francophone Quebec."

It could easily be argued that, since 1968, their concept of federalism has earned the NDP one seat in Quebec, while by contrast the Liberal vision has earned us a whopping four hundred fifty seven, or at least the truly vast majority of those which came under Trudeau and Chretien.

I'm not concerned about losing federalist ground to a party that I think is out of touch with just about everyone on federalism. I am however concerned that we've lost too much already and that we'll the divide the shaky ground upon which we currently stand, and that's the last thing both our party and our country need right now.

11/09/2006 2:52 a.m.  
Blogger Jason Bo Green a dit...

Oh brother.

Antonio, you're ridiculous.

11/09/2006 11:49 a.m.  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

What does Ignatieff say about the Israeli planes flying threateningly close to NATO troops in Lebanon and the Med?

I'm expecting no answer, because Antonio and Alex don't like answering the tough ones.

11/09/2006 2:46 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home