November 15, 2006

I Think my (edit: Former) Boss Should Win

So Hugh Segal, (edit:former) President of the IRPP, thinks Bob Rae, who is on the IRPP’s Board of Directors (and was at the time segal was President), will be the best person to win the Liberal Leadership.

Mhmm…

Discuss.

17 Commentaires:

Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/15/2006 1:54 PM  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/15/2006 2:31 PM  
Blogger big gay al's big gay liberal sanctuary a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/15/2006 2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

hahah... thats what I thought when a memo was "leaked" claiming that the Tories though Michael Ignatieff was their worst nightmare.

Ignatieff and Rae may appear in polls at this time as the most electable; but after an election cycle of Iggy-gaffe's and other parties reminiscing about Rae days? I think I'll take my chances with Kennedy (or Dion).

11/15/2006 2:35 PM  
Blogger propatria a dit...

Obviously a separate quebec would not have the same borders as the province of quebec. Well, as long as the canadian PM wasnt a weakling, or some kind of racist against french-canadians.

11/15/2006 3:42 PM  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

good question big gay al. looking forward to the response from someone who NEVER shys away from answering the tough questions.

my opinion is that the leaked conservative memo was an attempt to get delegates to support iggy. i know if i was boss harp, i would LOVE to campaign against him.

i do think antonio is wrong that segal is up to the same dirty tricks...ie using reverse psychology. segal and rae have a long history of respect for each other as they have both been deeply involved in canadian public service for decades. he may actually like to have rae as PM, due to their close ties. but i do believe he is sincere when he says the conservatives shouldn't want to campaign against rae.

rae will offer a clear choice in the next election if up against harper. iggy wouldn't, aside from his professed beliefs in social justice. they share the same neoliberal philosophy on economic affairs and the same neoconservative philosophy on foreign affairs. this was a problem in the last election, as martin shared iggy's views, but waffled in face of public scrutiny and opposition to the iraq war and ballistic missile defence.

11/15/2006 4:28 PM  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/15/2006 11:29 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Of course I support the Clarity Act, what kind of a question is that.

The borders of the Quebec nation, (to me) are the present borders of Quebec. Although that is not what they started with, I believe it is safe to say that is where the most people who identify to the nation, live. It makes logical sense.

Anna Yanuk, if that is your real name, this has gone on far enough, I am contacting a lawyer to send a mise en demeure.

11/16/2006 12:46 AM  
Blogger Philippe Legault a dit...

Back on subject:

Antonio,

Hugh Segal was appointed as President and CEO of the IRPP in 1999. In June 2006, Mel Cappe was appointed the new President and CEO of IRPP.

Hugh Segal is NOT the President of IRPP, nor is he even a member of the board of IRPP anymore.

The updated information can be found at : http://www.irpp.org/about/ab_board.htm

To be truthful and factual, your title should read: "I Think a member of the board of directors of my ex-Boss Should Win".

Your body of message should read: "So Hugh Segal, ex-President of the IRPP, thinks Bob Rae, who is on the IRPP’s Board of Directors, will be the best person to win the Liberal Leadership."

And this is without mentioning the blatant, baseless and vile character attacks you're implicitly making on both Bob Rae and Hugh Segal.

Worth mentioning: My comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any campaign or candidate that I might be supporting in any official or unofficial capacity.

Cheers,

PL

11/16/2006 1:55 AM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Thank you Phil for being reasonable.

yes, I should have said my former boss. I'll change it.

This is not a vile character attack however. But you are a lawyer phil. Is "you're actions slander the liberal party reputation." defamation?

11/16/2006 8:28 AM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Anna Yanuk has removed her comment...shucks...Where is the apology that comes with it?

You have done yourself a great disservice

11/16/2006 8:56 AM  
Blogger anna yanuk a dit...

antonio, i apologize. i realize some things i've said can be taken out of context and were unappropriate. my intentions weren't to hurt anyone.

please accept my apology.

11/16/2006 9:03 AM  
Blogger Skip a dit...

Haha, you let Antonio bully you? :)

On a serious note, Antonio, was anything that Hugh Segal said, factually incorrect? I mean, has Bob Rae not already toppled two Conservative governments? Is Bob Rae not the most experienced political animal in the race? Has Ignatieff not made a boatload of gaffes and missteps?

I mean, really, are any of these statements untrue?

Nope - it's just facts Antonio. Love them, leave them, but facts they will remain.

11/16/2006 10:17 AM  
Blogger propatria a dit...

To me this: "The borders of the Quebec nation, (to me) are the present borders of Quebec."

Is not the same thing as this: "Although that is not what they started with, I believe it is safe to say that is where the most people who identify to the nation, live. It makes logical sense."

I agree with your second point, but i absolutely disagree with your first point. The only territorial borders the "quebec nation" (or french-canadians, previous subjects of the french crown in canada, quebecois, whatever) have are the borders of canada. A guy born in bc has as much right to quebec as someone born in quebec, and vice versa. To suggest otherwise is to give currency to the separatist notion of the province of quebec being the nation of quebec within the nation of canada, which is complete and utter bunk.

Obviously the vast majority of the "quebec nation" lives in quebec, and rightfully so has laws to protect the invaluble language and institutions of the "quebec nation". But those laws, institutions, and language do not make provincial boundries into national ones. That is absurd.

Im an anglo born and raised in quebec. As much as separatists would love to say that makes me part of the "quebec nation", i am very aware it does not. Like french-canadians outside of quebec, im another fly in the ointment of the separatist lie.

11/16/2006 11:12 AM  
Blogger canuckistanian a dit...

nice answer antonio. so does that mean if quebec separates that the firsts nations peoples land will not remain part of canada? what about the eastern townships? what about westmount?

separation necessarily entails that areas which want to remain part of canada will do so, and areas that don't will remain part of quebec. the provincial boundaries of quebec are NOT national boundaries. a sociological nation is an "immagined community"...that does not include territory.

11/16/2006 1:42 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

i am in the middle of several term papers, I will give a more flushed out response this weekend

but, in the eventuality of secession, present borders would be used.

I could say it will never happen...but that would be a copout.

Nations dont have borders necessarily and anybody can choose to identify which nation they belong to. However, to say the nation does not exist because it does not have concrete borders is...well..dismissing a much more important premise

patience guys.

11/16/2006 3:17 PM  
Blogger propatria a dit...

Im offended that you would choose school over chatting with a bunch of people you've never met. Seriously though im a cegep dropout so at the risk of sounding like your grandfather and stating the obvious, dont lett up on skool.

But just to throw some points out there:

There is no doubt that a separate quebec would be partitioned. If canada is divisible, so is quebec.

And i absolutely agree there is a french-canadian nation, or if you will a "quebec nation", as in a french-canadian people. But the national borders of that people are the borders of canada, not the borders of quebec. All of canada belongs to french-canadians.

11/16/2006 4:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home