# Apps Pimps Egghead Again



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

source: http://www.bourque.org/

click link "APPS PIMPS EGGHEAD AGAIN"

****

----Original Message-----
From: Apps, Alfred
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006
To:
Subject: Meet Michael Ignatieff - Invitation -


Dear XXX:

Please pardon the informality and short notice of this email, but this
message is to invite you to an informal breakfast that John Campion and
I are hosting next Monday morning to introduce Michael Ignatieff to a
small group of friends and colleagues in the downtown Toronto legal
community.

Where: Fasken Martineau, 42nd Floor, TD Bank Tower Main
Boardroom

When: Monday, February 20 7:30 - 9:00 a.m.

Many of us spent over 18 months persuading Michael to leave behind the
world of Harvard and international human rights work behind, to devote
the last phase of his life to public service in his native land.
As you undoubtedly know, after a remarkable, international academic,
literary and journalistic career, Michael returned to Canada last Fall
to run for the Liberal Party of Canada in the riding of
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Despite the national tide running against the
Liberals, and a fair amount of controversy in the riding itself, he won
a very impressive victory on January 23rd.
For several months, even before he decided to run in Etobicoke,
Michael's name has been mentioned in the media as a potential Leader of
the national Party. Michael himself has never promoted this idea, and
even today he has not made up his mind about whether to seek this
opportunity, in spite of the urging of many influential people in the
Party, and hundreds of Liberals across the country.
John and I are among those hundreds of Liberals. We believe that
politics can be better in Canada. We are convinced that Michael
Ignatieff will lead the broad rebuilding and renewal that the Liberal
Party of Canada needs, and eventually, as Prime Minister, elevate the
tone of our public discourse and restore a clear and progressive sense
of purpose to our national life.
The purpose of this Reception, and a few others that Liberals like me
are holding over these next few weeks, is for Michael to meet or
reacquaint with some people of influence in Toronto... and for you to
meet him and discuss some of your thoughts about this country, and where
it's going.
We know (and so does Michael) that many of the people I'm inviting are
not Liberals. This will not be a political rally... but rather a mutual
and low-key opportunity for intelligent people who care about this
country to meet someone who might well be in a position, one day, to put
a vision and a stamp on its direction.
We hope you'll come.



W. Alfred Apps
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Patent & Trade Mark Agents
Toronto, Ontario


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Hmm, maybe I'll go....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

support war and torture - support michael ignatieff


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> support war and torture - support michael ignatieff


You clearly haven't read his books.

And everybody supports "war" at some point or another.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> support war and torture - support michael ignatieff


:lmao: 

Your insights keep leaving quite the impression.


----------



## Showtime (Feb 17, 2006)

Michael Ignatieff is the next leader of the liberal party. Yo ushoudl go.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Showtime said:


> Michael Ignatieff is the next leader of the liberal party. Yo ushoudl go.


i don't support bigotry no matter what academic degree it holds


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't support bigotry no matter what academic degree it holds


And what bigoted thing did he say?  

I think you've decided to hate Ignatieff regardless of anything he did or didn't say. 

When you condemn a man without a shred of evidence: that's bigotry.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> And what bigoted thing did he say?
> 
> I think you've decided to hate Ignatieff regardless of anything he did or didn't say.
> 
> When you condemn a man without a shred of evidence: that's bigotry.


just because ignatieff denies saying certain things doesn't mean he didn't say them



> *Ukrainians were never 'little,' or 'Russian'*
> 
> He thought people like my parents were "strange and pathetic" because, in the 1960s, they would gather in protest, even in the snow, "haranguing people" who just wanted to see the Bolshoi ballet, and "to hell with the politics."
> 
> ...


http://www.brama.com/news/press/2005/11/051129oped_luciuk-ignatieff.html



> November 27, 2005, Ottawa, ON — The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is very disappointed that the Liberal Party of Canada would support the nomination of Michael Ignatieff as a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada. It will be difficult for Canadians to support a party that fields a candidate who makes such derogatory remarks as:
> 
> “From my childhood in Canada, I remember expatriate Ukrainian nationalists demonstrating in the snow outside ballet performances by the Bolshoi in Toronto. ‘Free the captive nations!’ they chanted. In 1960, they seemed strange and pathetic, chanting in the snow, haranguing people who just wanted to see ballet and to hell with the politics. They seemed fanatical too, unreasonable. Hadn’t they looked at the map? How did they think Ukraine could ever be free?”
> 
> ...


http://eng.maidanua.org/node/450


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Another perspective:

http://dangardner.ca/Col30nov05.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Another perspective:
> 
> http://dangardner.ca/Col30nov05.html


from the column cited above;


> The other bias Ignatieff is describing is one he learned from his grandparents, Russian nobles who lived for decades in Ukraine. They took the traditional Russian view that Kyiv is not only a Russian city but that it is the birthplace of Russian identity because it was there that the ruler of Kievan Rus accepted Christianity and laid the foundations of the Russian Orthodox Church.
> 
> In this tradition, Russians and Ukrainians are not separate nations but are instead branches of one family. "Somewhere inside," Ignatieff writes of the influence of his grandparents, "I'm also what Ukrainians would call a Great Russian, and there is just a trace of old Russian disdain for those little Russians."


I don't know of any Ukrainians that would call Russians "great Russians" nor do I know of any Ukrainians that think of themselves as "little Russians"
"little Russian" is a derogatory term invented by czarist Russians to attach Ukrainian history (Kievan Rus) as a front end for their own to give them more "history"

You might as well use the "n" word or any other ethnic slur for Irish, Italians, Jews, First Nations, Germans, etc (take your pick)
Canada is a place of acceptance and tolerance of cultures - "the woven tapestry we call multiculturalism" 

Perhaps Iggy and the author could point out a few thousand people that consider themselves "little Russians" and not just communist apparatchiks that yearn for the days of empire and work in the then Soviet fronted "Ukrainska Kyga" bookstore in Toronto where the sales clerks refused to speak Ukrainian

I guess one could call Canadians "little Americans" then, eh?

Wrapping bigotry in an academic robe doesn't make it smell any better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Liberals clearly knew there was a perception problem with MI as they refrained from putting him our riding which was open.

MIs support of the war in Iraq would have made him a wipe out here with our high Muslim population component.
As it is the Libs won handily despite poll predictions that the Con candidate would win.

I thought the entire handling of the MI parachuting and nomination very distasteful especially as the start off face plant on what turned out to be a poorly thought out campaign by the Liberals. 

For all the offering of "opposing views" clearly many Ukrainians in the riding and elsewhere have a very dim view of this fellow and perhaps their view should be heeded as "best informed".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Wrapping bigotry in an academic robe doesn't make it smell any better.


More of the same.

To the less angry, and those thinking this through and unsure about their position:

The people spreading anger over selected quotes, one of which has been shown to be taken out of context (to manipulate sentiment? never...), should be more careful. Loud != true. I don't know if there is a 'right' in this argument, maybe Ignatieff does hold the views he's accused of holding, but letting the loudest dictate public sentiment, no matter their background, is not a good idea...we've seen that happen before. 

How many who have read the works are angry versus the number who've taken up the cause with righteous anger given just a glimmer of information that, in at least one case, was out of context?

This issue is particularly interesting because the Conservatives, anti-war, anti-Bush, former riding insiders, looney socialists and more all want him pulled down, so there's not much of a coordinated response to the widely desired smear campaign. We'll see how it turns out. Either way, an important consideration for any Liberal leader: are you good for the party?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> from the column cited above;
> 
> 
> I don't know of any Ukrainians that would call Russians "great Russians" nor do I know of any Ukrainians that think of themselves as "little Russians"
> ...


Also from the article:
...
"Looking back," Ignatieff concludes, "I see that time in the crypt as a moment when I began to change, when some element of respect for the national project began to creep into my feelings, when I understood why land and graves matter and why the nations matter which protect both."

This is the fine and humane writing of a serious man. For it to be characterized as some kind of tawdry ethnic slur is itself a slur.

But of course it was bound to happen. Canada's political culture is thick with a pseudo-populist atmosphere in which the dim, dull and conventional thrive while the thoughtful and creative wilt.
...

Using the 'n' word, for example, to characterise a mindset and pull the reader into an understanding of said mindset (instead of just, for example, saying a 'racist' mindset -- you know, show, don't tell) is an effective tool for writing. Just looking at a line in a book and ignoring the rest is an effective tool for spinners.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Canada's political culture is thick with a pseudo-populist atmosphere in which the dim, dull and conventional thrive while the thoughtful and creative wilt.


What drivel......THIS is the nation with a Charter that is envied by people around the world.
Covering up or white washing attitudes that are subversive to that achievement - especially in one who wants or is under consideration for leadership of the Liberals - does a disservice to that spirit the Charter represents is odious.

I'll listen to the people IN the riding and of the ethnicity under discussion as having a more qualified understanding of the discontent, which certainly from my viewpoint is a well grounded discontent.

Mix the rest.....Liberal nervousness about parachuting him in here, Iraq war support, much time spent in the US rather than Canada and he's far from any leader qualities I'd want in any party let alone the Liberals.

This is not an everyday individual whose views might be glossed over ...this is a high profile elitist parachuted in for political and potential leadership qualities and so deserves the level of scrutiny the position entails.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The individuals you speak of may have a, "more qualified understanding of the discontent", but does that mean they have a better understanding of MI's true disposition? I don't know, do you? Does this not seem somewhat familiar with other events?

I am greatly optimistic for Canada's future because such a caustic topic is taking place with words, reprimands and analysis. Something similar, under other authorities, could explode into violence. Whatever side, if any side, you fall under, this issue can be an example of the cool Canadian approach to internal conflict. We should ensure that it retains more discussion of points of view rather than mob-like tendencies or worse.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatieff

_Ukrainian Canadian members of the riding association have complained that the party establishment is trying to help Ignatieff at the expense of other potential candidates for the nomination, as well as complained regarding allegedly anti-Ukrainian comments in his 1993 book Blood and Belonging : Journeys into the New Nationalism in which Ignatieff wrote:
*"I have reasons to take the Ukraine seriously indeed. But, to be honest, I'm having trouble. Ukrainian independence conjures up images of peasant embroidered shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony Cossacks in cloaks and boots . . .”*
However, controversy died down when it was revealed that the above quote was taken out of context, from a chapter in which Ignatieff argues against such stereotypes. After winning the Liberal nomination in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ignatieff sent out a press release regarding the controversy and his positions:
*"This is a transparent attempt to twist my writings with the objective of sowing division and strife in Liberal ranks on the eve of a campaign. I am satisfied that tactics of this sort tend to rebound heavily on their perpetrators when weighed against the truth.
My record and writings on the subject matter of Ukraine and Ukrainian history are clear. I welcome anyone who wants to review that record to do so in its entirety."* Nov. 28 2005 Ignatieff Press Release_


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just because ignatieff denies saying certain things doesn't mean he didn't say them


He did say them - in a chapter of his book written to critique and condemn such views. To take those words completely out of context is dishonest.

You fell right into my trap when I asked "what bigoted thing did he say."

Read the whole damn chapter (or even the book). What he says makes sense.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Covering up or white washing attitudes that are subversive to that achievement - especially in one who wants or is under consideration for leadership of the Liberals - does a disservice to that spirit the Charter represents is odious.


No one is white-washing anything. Ignatieff isn't hiding anything. He only asks that his words be taken in context.



MacDoc said:


> I'll listen to the people IN the riding and of the ethnicity under discussion as having a more qualified understanding of the discontent, which certainly from my viewpoint is a well grounded discontent.


Why don't you read his book, too? Then you can say your opinion is balanced.



MacDoc said:


> Mix the rest.....Liberal nervousness about parachuting him in here, Iraq war support, much time spent in the US rather than Canada and he's far from any leader qualities I'd want in any party let alone the Liberals.


Jean Augustine was also parachuted into that very riding, to keep it from being run-over by "Liberals for Life."



MacDoc said:


> This is not an everyday individual whose views might be glossed over ...this is a high profile elitist parachuted in for political and potential leadership qualities and so deserves the level of scrutiny the position entails.


Ignatieff can handle any level of scrutiny. As he's said: *"I welcome anyone who wants to review that record to do so in its entirety."* :clap: 

As for "elitist," Ignatieff would become the first Liberal leader in a long, long time who isn't a multi-millionaire, unlike Martin, Chretien, or Trudeau (who never worked a day in his life). Martin himself was worth $225 million!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> ... or Trudeau (who never worked a day in his life).


While his family may have been rich, Trudeau volunteered more of his time and money to the causes of the poor and sick than can possibly be imagined.

Much of what he did with his time can be decribed as "work," including his political service. He was conscripted, he was a lawyer, a professor, a journalist, and on and on. All those things involve "work" in the traditional sense. He was of course reluctant about going into public service, but he did serve his country for a very, very long time.

-------

From the wiki:

Born in Montreal to Charles Trudeau and Grace Elliott, Trudeau earned a law degree at the Université de Montréal in 1943, followed by a master's in political economy at Harvard. During his attendance at the Université de Montréal, Trudeau was conscripted into the Army, like thousands of other Canadian men, as part of the National Resources Mobilization Act. He joined the Canadian Officers Training Corps and served with other conscripts in Canada. Conscripted soldiers were not liable for overseas military service until after the crisis of late 1944. He said he was willing to become involved in the war, but he believed that to do so would be to turn his back on a Quebec population he considered to have been betrayed by the King government. In a 1942 Outremont by-election, he campaigned for the Quebec anti-conscription candidate Jean Drapeau, and was eventually expelled from the Officers' Training Corps for lack of discipline. After the war, he attended the Institut d'études politiques de Paris in Paris in 1946-47, and spent the following year at the London School of Economics.
From the late 1940s through the mid-1960s, Trudeau was primarily based in Montreal and was seen by many as an intellectual. In 1949, he was an active supporter of workers in the Asbestos Strike. In 1956, he edited an important book on the subject, La grève de l'amiante, which argued that the strike was a seminal event in Quebec's history, marking the beginning of resistance to the conservative, francophone clerical establishment and anglophone business class that had long ruled the province. Throughout the 1950s, Trudeau was a leading figure in the opposition to the repressive rule of Premier of Quebec Maurice Duplessis as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution.
Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the United States and prevented from entering that country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow (where he was briefly arrested for throwing a snowball at a statue of Stalin) and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications. Trudeau later appealed the ban, and it was rescinded.
An associate professor of law at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1965, Trudeau's views evolved towards a liberal position in favour of individual rights counter to the state and made him an opponent of Québec nationalism. In economic theory he was influenced by professors Joseph Schumpeter and John Kenneth Galbraith, while he was at Harvard. Trudeau criticized the Liberal Party of Lester Pearson when it supported arming Bomarc nuclear missiles in Canada with nuclear warheads. Nevertheless, he was persuaded to join the party in 1965 with his friends Gérard Pelletier and Jean Marchand. The "three wise men" ran for the Liberals and were elected in the 1965 election. Trudeau was appointed two years later to Pearson's cabinet as Minister of Justice.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> While his family may have been rich, Trudeau volunteered more of his time and money to the causes of the poor and sick than can possibly be imagined.


Are you saying he actually did more work "than can possibly be imagined." ???


Han Solo said:


> I don't know. I can imagine quite a bit.


Hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

*He said he was willing to become involved in the war, but he believed that to do so would be to turn his back on a Quebec population he considered to have been betrayed by the King government. *
Yes, because fighting the Nazis is a betrayal of Quebec?

*In a 1942 Outremont by-election, he campaigned for the Quebec anti-conscription candidate Jean Drapeau, and was eventually expelled from the Officers' Training Corps for lack of discipline. *
:lmao: 

*From the late 1940s through the mid-1960s, Trudeau was primarily based in Montreal and was seen by many as an intellectual. *
Translation: he sat on his wealthy ass and was full of himself.

*In 1949, he was an active supporter of workers in the Asbestos Strike.*
Gee, did that include long hours?

*[...] as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution.*
Required 9-5 hours, I'm sure.

*An associate professor of law at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1965[...]*
An associate professor, or just an assistant professor? What did he lecture on? How often?

There is very little information about Trudeau working, because he did so very little work. Thus, he is remembered as a pampered intellectual.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Wow, that's pretty stupid.

Have you ever advocated on someone else's behalf, had an article published, taught a class, run for office, held office, ran a ministry, wrote a law?

Define "work."

I'd say the "work" involved in repatriating the constitution was about a million times more important than anything you ever contemplated doing, let alone actually did.

How's that for some textbook hyperbole?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

HowEver said:


> I'd say the "work" involved in repatriating the constitution was about a million times more important than anything you ever contemplated doing, let alone actually did.
> 
> How's that for some textbook hyperbole?


I was clearly speaking of his time before politics. 

"Work" is when someone pays you to show up and do a task, every day. Those miners Trudeau advocated for "worked." Trudeau didn't work - he only dabbled.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> "Work" is when someone pays you to show up and do a task, every day.


No... actually "work" may be undertaken on a voluntary basis... when you show up and do a task or several every day and don't get paid. 
This is the type of work "serving as an advocate" would likely fall under. Generally you undertake such a thing because it's something you strongly believe in... something which would serve for the betterment of society and people's lives or to prevent something harmful from happening.

It can be very hard work entailing many long hours and duties you may not necessarily enjoy but you do because you feel it's the right thing to do. Just because no one pays you "money" to do it doesn't mean it's not WORK and hard work at that.

This type of "work" is not done by selfish people... 

BTW... your current sig.
You into quoting Bush now?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> BTW... your current sig.
> You into quoting Bush now?


I just think it's really funny.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

???

Ok...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Ignatieff's own response to quotes cited above by MacSpectrum:


> I was saddened to learn yesterday of an attempt to distort my words and pervert my meaning in a discussion of the Ukrainian experience in one of my books, “Blood and Belonging”. Anyone who reads the entire chapter in question, rather than merely the phrases that have been cited in isolation and out of context, will quickly recognize that my sole purpose was to rebut, not assert, the odious stereotype of Ukrainians that has been wrongly and unfairly attributed to me.
> 
> This is a transparent attempt to twist my writings with the objective of sowing division and strife in Liberal ranks on the eve of a campaign. I am satisfied that tactics of this sort tend to rebound heavily on their perpetrators when weighed against the truth.
> 
> My record and writings on the subject matter of Ukraine and Ukrainian history are clear. I welcome anyone who wants to review that record to do so in its entirety.


 Full Text of Statement by Michael Ignatieff

Let me just add this: Macspectrum's relentless, childish, name calling — his persistent reference to him as "Iggy" — makes his opinions less credible and very tiresome.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Your comments don't just apply to 'Iggy-related' posts. 

General commentary:
People with a large body of public written opinion are always risky political choices...some media, and now bloggers, who have an axe to grind for any reason (I mentioned some of the reasons in a previous post) aren't big on context, consideration and understanding. They are in it for the controversy and smear-at-all-costs. Having said that, Harper pulled it off and much of his stuff was interpreted very much in context (not the Liberal ads, but much of his other work). This could be a very interesting leadership contest that the party so badly needs.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Let me just add this: Macspectrum's relentless, childish, name calling — his persistent reference to him as "Iggy" — makes his opinions less credible and very tiresome.


and the hits just keep on coming
they day Iggy becomes leader of the Liberal party woulkd be a very sad day in Canada's history

I don't think his chances are as good as he was once led to believe, by that cabal of "smarter than thou" pseudo-intellectuals that parachuted Iggy into that riding, ingnoring both "the democratic process" and loud outcry from the community


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Yeah, just look at that outcry....

Party---------Candidate-----------Votes---% Votes
Conservative--John Capobianco------19,613---35.2
Liberal-------Michael Ignatieff------24,337---43.6
N.D.P.-------Liam McHugh-Russell---8,685---15.6	

Total number of valid votes:55,778 
Rejected ballots:248 
Total number of votes:56,026


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and the hits just keep on coming
> they day Iggy becomes leader of the Liberal party woulkd be a very sad day in Canada's history
> 
> I don't think his chances are as good as he was once led to believe, by that cabal of "smarter than thou" pseudo-intellectuals that parachuted Iggy into that riding, ingnoring both *"the democratic process" *and loud outcry from the community


All of the major parties have a process whereby the leader of the party may select "star" candidates and parachute them into a riding.

In this case, all Ignatieff did was put his name in. If it was his fault that his opponents couldn't file last minute challenges to the nomination process--they got there after the process was over, and didn't dispute being late for very long--how is that Ignatieff's fault?

By the way, can you name ONE of the people you mentioned above, *"that cabal of "smarter than thou" pseudo-intellectuals that parachuted Iggy into that riding..."*

This should be interesting. One name?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ignatieff "put his name in" with full knowledge of how quick Augustine's resignation would be and how little time there would be for him (read the cabal) to file his nomination.

Iggy's nomination, will his full knowledge, was setup so that the timing would NOT allow any challenge and somehow he feels that is ok.

Now there is a "news blackout" when it comes to the other potential candidates who were made to legally promie not to discuss the issue any longer. Iggy is also aware of this and with his full blessing.

Just how many candidates get booed at their own nomination meeting by their own party faithful?


> Michael Ignatieff, the Harvard professor whose transparent leadership plans riled Martin loyalists enough to turn the fight for the Etobicoke-Lakeshore nomination into an ugly brawl.


I hope he enjoys his life as a backbencher and after his unusuccesful bid for leader he will run away back to Harvard as he promised.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Ignatieff's opponents could have filed to run for the nomination, but admitted they were just late. It wasn't like nominations were open for 5 minutes.

News blackout? How about, except for this thread, the sour grapes have simply moved on and got a life.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

news blackout as in "riding executives that met with Liberal hierarchy" are under a signed gag order to not talk about what was said in a meeting at the Royal York hotel

that type of blackout
Iggy may have played guitar, but his Iggy doesn't play grass roots democracy


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

news blackout as in "riding executives that met with Liberal hierarchy" are under a signed gag order to not talk about what was said in a meeting at the Royal York hotel, Jan. 2006

that type of blackout
Iggy may have played guitar, but his Iggy doesn't play grass roots democracy


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...his Iggy doesn't play grass roots democracy


A riding association hijacked by a one-note claque, so self absorbed with their obsession that the president worked against his own party, is not my idea of democracy either.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> A riding association hijacked by a one-note claque, so self absorbed with their obsession that the president worked against his own party, is not my idea of democracy either.


can you define "worked against his own party?"
or is this left to the reader as an exercise?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> can you define "worked against his own party?"
> or is this left to the reader as an exercise?


I would think a reader as politically astute as you would not need any help. Indeed, with all of your professed knowledge on the conflict in this riding, how could you NOT know that  Liberal riding president resigns, endorses Conservative?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I have to agree. That was one seriously not classy move supporting the Conservative.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> I would think a reader as politically astute as you would not need any help. Indeed, with all of your professed knowledge on the conflict in this riding, how could you NOT know that  Liberal riding president resigns, endorses Conservative?





> the president worked against his own party


so first he resigns (ergo - is no longer presdient) and THEN supports another party 
and that ISN'Tan exercise in democracy?

better that he just shut his mouth and tow the party line?
How very, very Soviet of you.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

*Chyczij said "the last straw" was at the last all-candidates meeting where he said Ignatieff "denied his controversial positions on Iraq, torture and various ethnic groups which are clearly on record."*

Clearly, Chyczij is an idiot. His own words prove it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> *Chyczij said "the last straw" was at the last all-candidates meeting where he said Ignatieff "denied his controversial positions on Iraq, torture and various ethnic groups which are clearly on record."*
> 
> Clearly, Chyczij is an idiot. His own words prove it.


and so the jack boot keeps goose stepping onwards
enjoy your pro Iraq war, pro torture MP/wanna be PM
you deserve him


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and so the jack boot keeps goose stepping onwards
> enjoy your pro Iraq war, pro torture MP/wanna be PM
> you deserve him


More of the out of context black and white world you live in. Complex point of view? No problems for you: they are easily slotted into 'goose stepping' and 'not goose stepping'. Interesting world, much like most people's childhood. After all, you're as young as you feel. Good for you! You have a very youthful view of the world around you.

For the rest of us, there's only a sad complex world of opinions that may differ from our own but still aren't nazi-like.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so first he resigns (ergo - is no longer presdient) and THEN supports another party
> and that ISN'T an exercise in democracy?
> 
> better that he just shut his mouth and tow the party line?
> How very, very Soviet of you.


You're macspectrumming* again. As I see it, he was a petty, self important clown who tried to use the riding association as his little fiefdom. The principles of the party did not change during the election campaign. The only thing that changed was that his personal political ambitions were thwarted - he wanted the nomination himself. So, he took his toys and ran away to Harper. You have a very flexible view of principled behaviour, you know.

*macspectrum: 
 a disingenuous or simple-minded argument, particularly where the argument is punctuated by accusing ones opponent of being a fascist;
(adj - macspectrummy) refers to an argument that is characterized by its disingenuousness or simple-mindedness, particularly where the argument is punctuated by accusing ones opponent of being a fascist;
(v) to make a macspectrummy argument.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> You're macspectrumming* again. As I see it, he was a petty, self important clown who tried to use the riding association as his little fiefdom. The principles of the party did not change during the election campaign. The only thing that changed was that his personal political ambitions were thwarted - he wanted the nomination himself. So, he took his toys and ran away to Harper. You have a very flexible view of principled behaviour, you know.


what Mr. Chyczij and the riding associaton executive wanted is to NOT have Iganiteff and his un-Canadian views pushed down the throats of the riding association

Ignatieff was party to the theft of the nomination
Augustine knew full well what she was doing when she "quickly resigned" 
I hope she enjoys her 30 pieces of silver and I'll be waiting to see what plum assignment she gets as her reward


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what Mr. Chyczij and the riding associaton executive wanted is to NOT have Iganiteff and his un-Canadian views pushed down the throats of the riding association


'un-Canadian' in your simple world. Well, beyond that one statement and looking at your body of work within more context than you have given others: For someone who has characterised others as 'goose stepping', you walk the talk more than your targets.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what Mr. Chyczij and the riding associaton executive wanted is to NOT have Iganiteff and his un-Canadian views pushed down the throats of the riding association


So, he quickly sold out his Liberal principles by supporting Harper. Sure, that's highly principled. And, by the waay, you're macspectrumming again (i.e. "un-Canadian views").


MACSPECTRUM said:


> Ignatieff was party to the theft of the nomination


 Chyczij was party to the theft of the riding association. Honestly, do you really support this guy and what he did? You would be more credible if you reserved just a little scorn for Chyczij.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

He had a candidate shoved down his throat via a hijacking of the supposed democractic nomination process. Said candidate was party to, and knew full well of, said hijacking.

A majority of Canadians have consistenly opposed any Canadian involvement in the invasion of Iraq. Ignatieff supports said invasion. Ergo un-Canadian.

Do you have any evidence of Chyczij hijacking the riding association ?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Do you have any evidence of Chyczij hijacking the riding association ?


Again, I am shocked at your lack of knowledge about a topic that has been the subject of so much macspectroscopy lately. From Grit MP's riding association subject to 'hostile take-over'


> Four-term Liberal MP Jean Augustine, a former junior Cabinet minister in the last Parliament, says her riding was subject to a "hostile take-over" last Thursday night.
> 
> "There has been a hostile take-over of the riding association," Ms. Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Ont.) told The Hill Times in a telephone interview last week from her riding where she was first elected in 1993.
> 
> ...


...and wouldn't you know it, Chyczij DID seek the nomination. 

The obvious purpose of building a power base in a riding association in a riding where he doesn't live, was to manipulate his way into Parliament. He tried and Augustine struck back to thwart him. You know what they say: what goes around comes around. 

And the funniest part is, what was it that you said about parachute candidates?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

augustine is hardly a reliable source as her motives for her "pop resignation" are highly suspect
who else announces their resignation mere hours before nominations were due?

again I watch for her payoff, rumoured to be with a plum provincial appointment

also her disparaging comments about how people at a gathering spoke a non-English language to each other is sad considering that Augistine is a visible minority
I guess Augstine doesn't believe in multi-culturalism, part of what makes Canada a great country


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I guess Augstine doesn't believe in multi-culturalism, part of what makes Canada a great country


Well, if you call a riding executive with only Ukrainian Canadians multicultural. Augustine seems to have done a bit better:


> "So, there are people from the Ukranian community on my executive, there are people from the Polish community, there are people from the Serbian community, there are people from the Croatian community, there are people from the Muslim community, there are people from the black community, there are people from the traditional white Canadian community. It's a whole mixed bag of people who've really been out there making sure that we keep the Liberal bag flying," Ms. Augustine said.


Of course, she didn't reach out to the Harper community, like your golden boy, so I guess you have to give him points for openness there.

What about that parachuting? OK for Chyczij, not for Ignatieff? Why's that?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ignatieff and his cabal were fully informed of Augustine's pending and secret resignation schedule, hence his having his papers in order with only hours before deadline

augustine and ignatieff ran this nomination process like tansfer of power - without any consideration for the good people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore - insiders only need apply

Ignatieff, the Liberal party and Augustine will all have this stink on them for years to come

"Je me souviens" as our Quebec brothers are fond of saying.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

In a statement, Ron Chyczij riding association president, cited both the controversy surrounding Ignatieff's nomination and the Harvard professor's views on Iraq, torture and ethnicity. The Toronto Star reports:

“I can no longer in good conscience support the Liberal candidate in this riding,” he said in a statement released this afternoon.

“After the nomination fiasco, I’ve purposely waited on the sidelines to see if Michael Ignatieff can in some way redeem himself as a credible Liberal candidate in this riding . . . this has not happened.”

The Star goes on to note:

Chyczij also resigned as president of the riding association and said the “last straw” leading to his decision was controversy about the views of Ignatieff, a former human rights professor at Harvard University, on the Iraq war, torture and ethnic groups.

Chycizj also appears to endorse an "Anyone-but-Ignatieff" slate, lauding Ignatieff's NDP challenger:

Chyczij also paid tribute to NDP candidate Liam McHugh-Russell, saying he and Capobianco “both have a clearer impression of what is important to the residents of this riding.”

“I urge voters to cast their ballot strategically in this election to ensure that Michael Ignatieff, the touted heir apparent to Paul Martin, gets a time-out to reconsider his future political ambitions in this country.”


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun points out the glaring hypocrisy of a professed defender of human rights shutting down those very rights in Etobicoke-Lakeshore with an uncontested nomination:


> Riding members -- especially Ukrainian-Canadians (traditionally among Canada's most loyal citizens) -- are upset that they were denied free choice, and claim Ignatieff mocked Ukrainians in one of his books (which he did). And what's Ignatieff's reaction to all this?
> 
> "A great evening ... this is politics," he said.
> 
> ...


Lloyd Axworthy has been criticizing Michael Ignatieff's vocal hawkishness since at least 2003. A Maclean's article from 2003 discussing the torture advocate and star Liberal candidate, has this to say:


> Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister who now heads the University of British Columbia's Liu Institute for Global Issues, charges that in arguing for U.S. force in Iraq, Ignatieff gave up far too easily on the chance of UN weapons inspections working. Axworthy says Ignatieff's "new liberal imperialism" takes a genuine concern for human rights in a dangerous direction. "He has drawn the wrong conclusions, frankly," he told Maclean's.


Lloyd Axworthy was Canada's most respected foreign minister since Pearson -- his opinion holds considerable weight, to put it mildly. Axworthy also made these comments to Maclean's in 2003, before Ignatieff went on the record with The Lesser Evil in 2004 supporting the torture of prisoners. This may explain why the tone of Axworthy's recent criticism of Ignatieff has become more biting.

http://www.simonpole.ca/node?from=100

=======================================
Canada's Prince of Darkness

by John Chuckman
(Friday December 02 2005)
"These are not views the majority of Canadians support. Since there are many rumors that this unpleasant man is to be groomed as a potential future prime minister, there is great cause for concern."

If Michael Ignatieff is anything, it's connected, and I do not mean just to the relatively small establishment of Canada, I mean connected to the shadowy godfathers of world empire. Ignatieff has a rich career in America where truly loyal service, whether by natural or adopted sons, is always handsomely rewarded.
...
Yet I have only now discovered the immensity of Ignatieff's arrogance. You see, he's been dropped into a federal riding (for American readers, the equivalent of a congressional district) to run for Canada's Parliament. He is being dropped by national leaders of the Liberal Party in search of "star" candidates for an approaching election which is expected to be close, but he has been dropped into a riding where a substantial number of Liberal faithful disagree with his alien views. Moreover, he has written in one of his books, as we shall see, words insulting to many residents of the riding.
Here is one Toronto columnist's description of Ignatieff's proud path to achieving the great honor of his life:
"And snookering one potential opponent, name of Shwec, on the grounds that he wasn't a party member, although he'd paid his dues, and another, name of Chyczij, who also happens to be the association president, on the grounds that he hadn't resigned the presidency when he filed. Not to mention locking the office door ahead of the deadline so they couldn't file in time."
It sounds a great deal like politics in Richard J. Daley's Chicago or President Mubarak's Egypt.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/23456

======================================
Michael Harris, Ottawa Sun
.....
Not only did Iggy steal a safe seat from an incumbent cabinet minister, he got the nomination without the possibility of a challenge. Democratic process is clearly for the non-asteroid candidates. Neither are party rules, which forbid the candidacy of someone not "ordinarily resident" in Canada. (It was awfully nice of Michael to drop in from Boston to pick up the nomination.)

Looking more like the Nutty Professor than a future prime minister, Ignatieff blathered his way through his acclamation to a chorus of boos. There were actually people in the room who believed that an appeal to "fair play and decency" would guarantee their right to a contested nomination. Bless them in their innocence. It was into the lobster pot headfirst for anyone who challenged the ascent of the guy in the PMO parachute and none other than national president of the Liberal Party, Michael Eizenga, was in the chair to make sure the fix stayed in.

Paul Martin may come to regret his latest appointment. Michael Ignatieff carries more baggage than a mule in a taxi strike. Here is a human rights professor who believes what 80% of Canadians, his own party, and two-thirds of Americans do not: That the war in Iraq was a good idea. He is also the Wagner-esque creator of the doctrine that lesser evil is allowed in the fight against greater evil, a notion that warms the hearts of people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as their people waterboard the enemy for the homeland.

As a thinker, Ignatieff has carried nuance all the way to incoherence. Iggy has written that "torture does work," and that "regulated" torture is the way to go. He has rejected what he calls the "absolutist moral perfectionist human rights stand" on the subject. In other words, he rejects the quaint international law that outlaws all torture without qualification. "I can see us doing it" he wrote, along with the suggestion that in the battle against greater evil torture is okay as long as we give it a new name. He did: "coercive interrogation."

But my favorite Iggy-ism is this one: If torture is being administered by a "non-sadistic" and "patriotic American" then the torturer should stand trial for his crime but be allowed the legal defence of "mitigation."

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2005/12/01/1333000.html

=============================

The Globe & Mail notes that it was well known among journalists in Ottawa almost two weeks ago that a riding had been found for Ignatieff. This directly contradicts Liberal Party HQ assurances that the urgency of the situtation required disqualifying two local candidates in favour of Ingatieff:



> At least two members of the riding association attempted to submit their nomination papers during the 24-hour period allocated by the Liberal Party. Both were denied their nomination. One had failed to resign from the riding's executive before running, contrary to party rules, and the other was ruled out because the Ontario wing of the Liberal party said it could not find his membership.
> 
> However, journalists in Ottawa reportedly knew from senior party officials 10 days before his acclamation that a riding for Mr. Ignatieff had been found.[


======================================

Conservative Party incumbent Peter Goldring (Edmonton East) told the press:


> "Mr. Ignatieff’s views have no place in a multicultural society like Canada," Goldring said.
> 
> Goldring was among 500 Canadian observers in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution in the fall of 2004.
> 
> "I was among those who identified electoral fraud and successfully called on western countries to support a new election," he said. "I know how sensitive Ukrainians are to those who would support in any way the behaviours and attitudes of their former Russian oppressors."


=================================

Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski stood up to condemn Ignatieff for exhibiting a "disdain for Ukrainians" in his book. "Canada is a country that is tolerant and multicultural," said Lukiwski, and he demanded the Liberals condemn Ignatieff's remarks.

The Liberals did not respond.

==================================

Of his one meeting with Ignatieff, Conservative pundit, Mark Steyn says:

I've met him just once, a decade or so back, at a dinner party in London for Canadian expats. He left early, telling me he found all this talk of Canada frankly rather parochial.
==============================


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

So, now that you're confronted with the reality that Chyczij was himself guilty of reprehensible manipulation of the riding association, and not even a resident of the area, you go back to more macspectrumming of Ignatieff with discredited allegations about his views about Ukrainians.

Are you going to answer this? Why is it OK for Chyczij to hijack a riding association and betray the sitting MP, and it's not OK for Augustine to strike back?

And I've asked this one a couple of times without answer from you. What about that parachuting? OK for Chyczij, not for Ignatieff? Why's that?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Hate doesn't require reason.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You're getting desperate now, MACSPECTRUM.

You're quote Conservatives about a Liberal leadership candidate? What are you expecting: glowing praise?

And you are quoting Sun columnists like Peter Worthington and Michael Harris, too? Of course Worthington is going criticize anything the Liberals do.

"_Lloyd Axworthy was Canada's most respected foreign minister since Pearson -- his opinion holds considerable weight, to put it mildly._" Uh, says who?

And Axworthy says "Ignatieff gave up far too easily on the chance of UN weapons inspections working." Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Waiting 10 years for a failed policy to suddenly start working qualifies. 

John Chuckman? I already demonstrated here (http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=361095&postcount=93) that this guy is a delusional hack.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

chyczij is a life long resident of canada
he became part of the executive through legal means
augustine's comments are discounted due to her part in the undemocratic transfer of power

if you equate someone that has lived in canada, particiapted in the political process by being riding executive, then submitting his name for nomination as a response to the underhanded method (24 hour notice) by which a non-Canadian resident was annointed as candidate even though said candidacy created a firestorm of upset within the riding assoc. and community, a candidate that supports the war in Iraq, supports torture, then I guess you would see no difference
or perhaps this is just code for some not-so-latent anti-Ukrainian sentiment?
first me, then Luciuk and now Chyczij
but i guess you'll tell me some of your best friends are Ukrainian, eh?



> And I've asked this one a couple of times without answer from you. What about that parachuting? OK for Chyczij, not for Ignatieff? Why's that?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...or perhaps this is just code for some not-so-latent anti-Ukrainian sentiment?
> first me, then Luciuk and now Chyczij


No, just anti-stupid sentiment. Your support of Chyczij is transparently hypocritical. The worst part of it is that, while you rip Ignatieff for being a parachute _candidate_ and deride Harper relentlessly, you defend Chyczij:
• for insinuating himself into a riding association where he doesn't live, in order to advance his personal political ambitions;
• for hijacking the riding association by engineering a perverse and divisive ethnic-based coup;
• for doing so on the neck of an incumbent from his own party;
• for betraying his party and supporting Harper, when his personal political ambitions were thwarted.

If you had any principles at all, you would not be supporting this guy.

By the way, next time you want to accuse someone of being a bigot, try to think for 10 seconds first.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> John Chuckman? I already demonstrated here (http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=361095&postcount=93) that this guy is a delusional hack.



Out of context... you did not demonstrate or *establish* a single thing except your own opinion... here's the whole thread:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=37271

In there I gave John Chuckman's credentials and email address... so how did you demonstrate he is a "delusional hack"? 

Did you email him? If so... what was his reply?

Define "delusional hack"...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

How's this for delusional hackery:

Irsael is exclusively responsible for the war on terror: http://www.rense.com/general65/peculiar.htm

*A good deal of the mess that we find ourselves in today, the so-called War on Terror and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, largely pivots on Israel's policy and behavior towards the Palestinians and on America's policy towards Israel. The problem of Israel versus the Palestinians has become a kind of geopolitical black hole which threatens to consume much of the energy and substance of Western society. Surely, we all have a right, and even a moral obligation, to address such a threatening situation without being called names.

Why doesn't Israel just make peace? Israel holds virtually all the cards. The weapons. The intelligence information. The economic advantages. The immensely powerful ally. At least certainly compared to the pathetic group of people, the Palestinians, it calls its enemy.*

Yes, read that last line again. In Chuckman's mind, Israel thinks all Palestinians are the enemy. As if. This is how Chuckman argues against those who think "criticism of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism."

But here is the real absurdity:

*The pointless destruction of Iraq, with at least a 100,000 civilians killed, a reign of terror unleashed, and the loss of some of civilization's greatest ancient artifacts was never about oil. It was intended to sweep Israel's most formidable, traditional opponent from the map.*

In this article, Chuckman compares Bush to Hitler (again). Never mind that passing similarities are present in any comparison. http://www.rense.com/general67/storm.htm But here again come the silly notions about Bush being overly concerned about Jews:

*And nothing could better please the majority of American Jews, who traditionally support Democrats, than knocking out Israel's most implacable foe. I think many Neo-cons advising Bush, apart from their usual sheer relish in advocating military force, probably believed an invasion offered the foundation for a new national political coalition in the United States. In this at least they may have been correct. *

What kind of man thinks conquering Iraq will sway American Jews into the Republican party? Chuckman, that's who.

More bizarre opinions: *You don't "bring" democracy to people, especially by killing large numbers of them and building air bases on their territory.* Gee, the Japanese might have reason to disagree here. The Germans, too.

How's this for comparison-by-non-essentials: 

_*Hitler was a fervent believer in raw Social Darwinism. He actually was a convert to a form of brutal paganism, captivated by the notion that brutality offered the necessary infusion of strength for a people somewhat enfeebled by the ethical norms of his time. He regarded Christianity as a weakness, although he could not openly speak that way. He often clearly misjudged who in fact were the fittest, but his enthusiasm was palpable when talking of the necessity for his generation of Germans to show utter ruthlessness in order to earn future greatness.

The talk of American Neo-cons is more tempered, but it comes from exactly the same moral and intellectual root stock. Social Darwinism and worship of force are conspicuously on display in Washington. Rather than hating Christianity, the Neo-cons have harnessed it, at least a substantial American portion of it, to their purposes.*_

That's right: neo-cons and nazis are both "social darwinists," and they are "born of the same moral stock."

One last: http://www.rense.com/general65/cana.htm

*The Conservatives have no critical priorities, no desperately wished-for program, but they have the opportunity to exploit an unpleasant situation for a possible minority government. In doing this they would be upsetting a lot of important initiatives now underway. They would be appealing to people's unhappiness over a scandal where all the information has not yet even been collected. They would be trying to remove a government that has done everything anyone could expect from government in setting things right.*

Yes, the Martin gov't "did everything right." :yawn:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

You know, I never visited rense.com before hearing about this Chuckman guy. Now looking at rense.com, I am rather disgusted. They actually have a link to the phoney "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and have stories about Jews in the Porn Industry and how Zundel is a victim of unfair laws.

Ok, I just got it: rense.com is a site that hosts stories about conspiracy theories and ufo sightings and psychic powers. Chuckman definitely belongs here.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> In there I gave John Chuckman's credentials and email address... so how did you demonstrate he is a "delusional hack"?
> 
> Did you email him? If so... what was his reply?


Why would I want to talk to this guy? He has clearly published his opinions.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> No, just anti-stupid sentiment. Your support of Chyczij is transparently hypocritical. The worst part of it is that, while you rip Ignatieff for being a parachute _candidate_ and deride Harper relentlessly, you defend Chyczij:
> • for insinuating himself into a riding association where he doesn't live, in order to advance his personal political ambitions;
> • for hijacking the riding association by engineering a perverse and divisive ethnic-based coup;
> • for doing so on the neck of an incumbent from his own party;
> ...


your holier than thou antics are not smoke screen enough to hide your bias
make as much smoke as possible, but don't expect me to believe you don't have a not so hidden agenda - no matter what your ethno-cultural background, it still stinks

you're the type of person that keeps talking about his own agenda regardless of any evidence on the other side
yelling louder doesn't make you any more correct nor hides your true intentions


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> He has clearly published his opinions.


as has Ignatieff on war and torture but somehow you give him a pass
good for goose and all that


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> as has Ignatieff on war and torture but somehow you give him a pass
> good for goose and all that


No, I agreed with what he said. Nowhere near the same thing.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> Irsael is exclusively responsible for the war on terror


That's a really dumb statement... unless I missed it somewhere I didn't see it attributed to Chuckman in the article. Is that something *you* thought up? Because no rational person would think Israel is "exclusively" responsible for the war on terror... 

Nor do I agree with Chuckman's opinion that the war with Iraq neccessarily has more to do with Israel than oil and money... but just because I don't agree with every little thing he says doesn't make him a "delusional hack". 

I don't believe all of Israel's people think all Palestinians are the enemy either... perhaps the two governments but not ALL the people involved. I'm sure there are more than plenty who would like to see some peaceful co-existence worked out and go on with a normal life. 

I'm not going to take sides here with either Israel or Palestine except to say all these people deserve a peaceful live and the right to persue their own religious beliefs w/o it causing a war! But I'm an idealist. I don't hate the Jews and I don't hate the Muslims... 

Just because Rense pick up Chuckman's articles don't make him a hack... he's in a lot of other places more reputable. I might have figured *you* would zero in on Rense to exclusion of all else! :yawn:


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Bush and Hitler... there *are* valid parallels as much as some people would like to stick their heads in the sand (or somewhere else)... there are valid parallels.

Why talk to Chuckman?

Oh I don't know... he might say something you don't want to hear? You'd rather just slam him than question what he said? 

If he were not published by Rense aka the online version of the National Enquirer ?

He's a strong controversial writer... I suspect he puts his email up because he may enjoy a debate. Maybe he just wants to make people think? Just a thought... but you need a brain for that... 

You really are starting to pick me with your "I'm right and your wrong" attitude!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> That's a really dumb statement... unless I missed it somewhere I didn't see it attributed to Chuckman in the article. Is that something *you* thought up? Because no rational person would think Israel is "exclusively" responsible for the war on terror...


Uh, didn't he say this:


> A good deal of the mess that we find ourselves in today, the so-called War on Terror and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, largely pivots on Israel's policy and behavior towards the Palestinians and on America's policy towards Israel. [...] Why doesn't Israel just make peace?


He is saying if Isreal "made peace" that terrorism would go away. Not quite, Chucky.



Dreambird said:


> Just because Rense pick up Chuckman's articles don't make him a hack... he's in a lot of other places more reputable.


Oh, I'm sure.....


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Bush and Hitler... there *are* valid parallels as much as some people would like to stick their heads in the sand (or somewhere else)... there are valid parallels.


"Parallels" are a dime a dozen. A platypus might have a bill, but it's no bird.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Why talk to Chuckman? ... Oh I don't know... he might say something you don't want to hear? You'd rather just slam him than question what he said?


If I emailed every crackpot about their opinions I wouldn't have much time for anything else. I already waste too much time here. 



Dreambird said:


> He's a strong controversial writer...


Actually, he's a boring, conspiracy-minded ranter.



Dreambird said:


> You really are starting to pick me with your "I'm right and your wrong" attitude!


Good. Defend a few more crackpots and you'll hear more of the same.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> No, I agreed with what he said. Nowhere near the same thing.


OK... so I'm just finding out about Ignatieff here... never knew that much about him til I started reading and posting here... so let me see if I've got this right...

Ignatieff supports the bloody stupid war in Iraq and the idea of "light" torture whatever that is... and *you* agree with that!?

I know one thing for sure... I do NOT support Canada being in Iraq for the purpose of this war. If it ever comes down to peacekeeping I might reconsider but I don't believe that will happen there until the US gets their butts out of the place.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*You* have a way of twisting everything said or written to suit yourself! 

No terrorism would not just "go away" if Israel and Palestine settled their differences but it sure would help...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> "Parallels" are a dime a dozen. A platypus might have a bill, but it's no bird.


Read what I said! There are *valid* parallels...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> If I emailed every crackpot about their opinions I wouldn't have much time for anything else. I already waste too much time here.


Yeah... obviously the Military is not keeping you busy enough...




> Actually, he's a boring, conspiracy-minded ranter.


Then why bore yourself by going to Rense and reading him...



> Good. Defend a few more crackpots and you'll hear more of the same.


And you go on defending crackpots like Bush...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> More bizarre opinions: *You don't "bring" democracy to people, especially by killing large numbers of them and building air bases on their territory.* Gee, the Japanese might have reason to disagree here. The Germans, too.


Unbelievable! I've got to be reading this wrong... tell me you don't honestly believe the Japanese appreciated having the crap bombed out of them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dreambird said:


> Unbelievable! I've got to be reading this wrong... tell me you don't honestly believe the Japanese appreciated having the crap bombed out of them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...


Yep, you're definitely reading it wrong.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Unbelievable! I've got to be reading this wrong... tell me you don't honestly believe the Japanese appreciated having the crap bombed out of them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...


No, but then again I didn't say than.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Yeah... obviously the Military is not keeping you busy enough...


True.


Dreambird said:


> Then why bore yourself by going to Rense and reading him...


Uh, 'cause you suggested it.


Dreambird said:


> And you go on defending crackpots like Bush...


I'm not a defender of Bush at all. Neither am I a supporter of the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> Ignatieff supports the bloody stupid war in Iraq and the idea of "light" torture whatever that is... and *you* agree with that!?


Rather than speak for Ignatieff, I encourage you to read his own words on the matter: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm


Micheal Ignatieff said:


> The president's power to make war is supposed to be balanced by Congress's power to declare it, but in practice, since Vietnam, Congress has not been able to rein in a president bent on the use of force overseas. A war on terror, declared against a global enemy, with no clear end in sight, raises the prospect of an out-of-control presidency. As we learned in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the case for a pre-emptive war is always bound to be speculative, based on doubtful intelligence that will be hard for either an electorate or its representatives, let alone the bureaucracy, to assess for credibility. In the pre-emptive wars of the future -- Iraq will not be our last exercise in this moral hazard -- our leaders will try to secure our consent by alternately threatening and reassuring us with the phrase ''If you only knew what we know.''
> 
> But as we have found to our cost, this is not nearly good enough. The facts may not be as clear before the event as they are likely to be afterward, but voters must be told what we need to know, before government commits to war in our name. Over Iraq, our name was taken in vain.
> 
> ...


As for "light torture," Ignatieff is suggesting rules regarding interrogation be relaxed in an emergencies, like a hostage situation. But even in those circumstances, only non-violent methods may be imposed, like sleep deprivation. In no way does Ignatieff endore the kind of things we've seen or heard about at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> You know, I never visited rense.com before hearing about this Chuckman guy. Now looking at rense.com, I am rather disgusted. They actually have a link to the phoney "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and have stories about Jews in the Porn Industry and how Zundel is a victim of unfair laws.
> 
> Ok, I just got it: rense.com is a site that hosts stories about conspiracy theories and ufo sightings and psychic powers. Chuckman definitely belongs here.


It's like that other site posted not too long ago. The site steps into crazy town, and it's worrying that it's used for news and analysis by anyone. I guess there's something wrong with the 'MSM' that is under 'The Man's' control (and at least has some standards and mechanisms for correction and responsibility); but looney beats that because it's crazy town!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you're the type of person that keeps talking about his own agenda regardless of any evidence on the other side
> yelling louder doesn't make you any more correct nor hides your true intentions


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

This had to be saved.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

What you said was:



> More bizarre opinions: *You don't "bring" democracy to people, especially by killing large numbers of them and building air bases on their territory.* Gee, the Japanese might have reason to disagree here. The Germans, too.


I'm not sure it's a "bizarre opinion" as I have to agree... you do not bring democracy to people by killing large numbers of them or building air bases on their territory... there's just no good excuse for killing large numbers of people and justifying it by saying "oh we were bringing them democracy"... you can't bring people something they have to want and strive for themselves anyway... you can't bring or teach democracy anymore than you can teach or bring freedom. 

True I suggested you read one of Chuckman's articles... however I did post an alternative to Rense... and the above was not even from an article by Chuckman... it was USMC Major General Smedley Butler... I didn't suggest you stick around Rense. I did allude to an "allergy" to the place... it is the online version of the National Enquirer in some ways. 

As to whether who you defend or support... you are contradictory... you agree with what Ignatieff says but you do not support the war in Iraq...  

He says he thinks Canada should be involved in the war... so what did I miss?

You agree or you don't. Whatever...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> As for "light torture," Ignatieff is suggesting rules regarding interrogation be relaxed in an emergencies, like a hostage situation. But even in those circumstances, only non-violent methods may be imposed, like sleep deprivation. In no way does Ignatieff endore the kind of things we've seen or heard about at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.


You mean those who just toss out the 'supports torture and the war' line aren't big on considering context and perspective, or considering anything outside of the polarised framework of 'nazi comparable' and 'the good, the fluffy and the cuddly'. 

So, anyone have updates on the leadership contest?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I'm not sure it's a "bizarre opinion" as I have to agree... you do not bring democracy to people by killing large numbers of them or building air bases on their territory...
> ...
> As to whether who you defend or support... you are contradictory... you agree with what Ignatieff says but you do not support the war in Iraq...
> 
> ...


Germany and Japan were 'democratized' by force and a form of occupation/control. Whether or not it is liked, it did work. 
...
Maybe read the quote again. But, some things to consider are: the means with which the war was justified to the people, a largely unilateral force versus international, and making it up as we go versus rules-based intervention. I'm sure there are many more topics for the list but, suffice it to say, viewing it as just a war/no war thing without other dimensions seems incomplete to me.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

BTW... mea culpa on suggesting anyone read an article on Rense... I don't like the place myself... it was just "handy"... faux pas on my part. 

The same article is on many sites. Very same article... 

Indeed the whole "God Bless Canada" thing is talked about all over the world it would seem from a Google search...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

I know how the Germans felt about American force and occupation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> BTW... mea culpa on suggesting anyone read an article on Rense... I don't like the place myself... it was just "handy"... faux pas on my part.
> 
> The same article is on many sites. Very same article...
> 
> Indeed the whole "God Bless Canada" thing is talked about all over the world it would seem from a Google search...


Understood and thanks for clarifying. I was suspecting that by the comparisons to the enquirer. 

It may be news (not big news), but not everyone agrees there's anything wrong with it or that it is a signal. Who knows? We'll see what happens by a reasonable look at what Harper does. I'm sure everyone here will be reasonable and not jump to conclusions based on vacuous angry sentiment. Well, actually I'm not so sure. Good luck ehmac, and may the intelligent designer (the one who thought up the platypus, sloth and panda) bless you!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I know how the Germans felt about American force and occupation.


Yes, but not many would suggest now that the two countries should have been left alone to chance it happening all over again. Two modern democracies were built by force. I think that was lpk's point.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

lpkmckenna said:


> Rather than speak for Ignatieff, I encourage you to read his own words on the matter: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm
> 
> As for "light torture," Ignatieff is suggesting rules regarding interrogation be relaxed in an emergencies, like a hostage situation. But even in those circumstances, only non-violent methods may be imposed, like sleep deprivation. In no way does Ignatieff endore the kind of things we've seen or heard about at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.


Thank you for posting that... it unfortunately confirms (for me anyway) something I've feared about the American public may be only too true... they have become either too apathetic, afraid or both to speak out against a President's imminent "stupid move"...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Beej said:


> Yes, but not many would suggest now that the two countries should have been left alone to chance it happening all over again. Two modern democracies were built by force. I think that was lpk's point.


OK... granted... point taken...  

All the war could do though was remove the force that was keeping the people of those countries from democracy... the finer points they had to learn for themselves...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not sure it's that. The U.S. is a very inward focussed country, so obsessing about their safety and prosperity would lead issues that the world thinks should be #1, not being their number one. Sort of like how, for some, African poverty is #1, but most voters, while thinking it's important, put things like their own health care, safety and prosperity well above it. No nation acts like it collectively values others' lives the same as their own (e.g. a muder in your neighbourhood is more worrying than one in another country), but the U.S. seems particularly insular.

[Edit: in response to post 90]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> All the war could do though was remove the force that was keeping the people of those countries from democracy... the finer points they had to learn for themselves...


Remove the force and aid through experience (very helpful), but this is also what the U.S. is trying now. The administration is incompetent though.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> No, I agreed with what he said. Nowhere near the same thing.


war mongers of a feather...

spare the cruise missile, spoil the people


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Remove the force and aid through experience (very helpful), but this is also what the U.S. is trying now. The administration is incompetent though.


unfortunately, their "incompetence" costs thousands of lives
the admin's catering to the m-i complex to boost their profits by fear mongering to wit seen any WMDs in Iraq yet?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your holier than thou antics are not smoke screen enough to hide your bias
> make as much smoke as possible, but don't expect me to believe you don't have a not so hidden agenda - no matter what your ethno-cultural background, it still stinks
> 
> you're the type of person that keeps talking about his own agenda regardless of any evidence on the other side
> yelling louder doesn't make you any more correct nor hides your true intentions


The irony is that this describes you far better than anyone else here.

It accounts for your irrationally vitriolic attacks on Ignatieff as well as your irrational defence of Chyczij. It accounts for your relentless characterization of others as fascists or "Soviet", in place of intelligent comment.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> The irony is that this describes you far better than anyone else here.
> 
> It accounts for your irrationally vitriolic attacks on Ignatieff as well as your irrational defence of Chyczij. It accounts for your relentless characterization of others as fascists or "Soviet", in place of intelligent comment.


your immediate discounting of a Canadian scholar like Luciuk shows your bias
repeating your point ad nauseum hardly hides it

perhaps someone force fed you a perogie as a child?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I know how the Germans felt about American force and occupation.


Liberated?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

More macspectrumming.

We were talking here about Chyczij, not Luciuk (who you introduced, and was discussed longer than warranted in another thread). You know his conduct was unseemly and contrary to principles you have espoused, but you don't have the principles to admit that your arguments were half-baked and wrong.

Funny, by the way, how Luciuk is a "a Canadian scholar" and Ignatieff is {every bad word in Macspectrums vocabulary}.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> More macspectrumming.
> 
> We were talking here about Chyczij, not Luciuk (who you introduced, and was discussed longer than warranted in another thread). You know his conduct was unseemly and contrary to principles you have espoused, but you don't have the principles to admit that your arguments were half-baked and wrong.
> 
> Funny, by the way, how Luciuk is a "a Canadian scholar" and Ignatieff is {every bad word in Macspectrums vocabulary}.



Luciuk promotes equal justice for all Canadian citizens under Canadian law regardless of their birthplace. Hardly "unseemly."

Ignatieff supports the Iraq war, torture and was party to hijacking a democractic process.

I can see how you confuse the two.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Rather than speak for Ignatieff, I encourage you to read his own words on the matter: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm
> 
> As for "light torture," Ignatieff is suggesting rules regarding interrogation be relaxed in an emergencies, like a hostage situation. But even in those circumstances, only non-violent methods may be imposed, like sleep deprivation. In no way does Ignatieff endore the kind of things we've seen or heard about at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.





> In his book, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, while hedging on the broader theme of torture, Ignatieff sanctions a list of ‘forms of duress’ such as “sleep deprivation, that do not result in harm to mental or physical health, and disinformation that causes stress”, hence the label, torture lite.
> 
> Again in the New York Times Magazine, May 2, 2004, he argued that “Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental health or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce duress”. Clearly he is on the side of applying ‘acceptable’ forms of torture to extort information from detainees, a practice whose value is at best dubious.
> ...
> The signs of trouble surrounding Ignatieff's entry into Canadian electoral politics are not limited to his evolving position on torture. An even more disturbing issue is his position on imperialism. His writings show that he has advocated naked imperialism – American imperialism – even at the expense of Canadian interests! In his 2003 book Empire Lite: Nation-building in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, he establishes what Taylor calls “a sort of rational framework for democratization by force and also for the revision of our understanding of human rights”. Subsequently, he has been accused of giving the American government of George W. Bush ‘the intellectual tools with which to justify his government’s expansionism’ suggesting euphemistically that the US empire’s “Grace Notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known”. This is especially troubling for someone who has been touted as a potential future Canadian foreign minister and even future Prime Minister.


http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/12/torture_lite_mi.php
=====================================




> To keep counterterror methods within tolerable bounds, he [Ignatieff] proposes such rules as judicial review, executive and Congressional oversight, free debate and limits on interrogation somewhere short of torture. How effective these rules might be is a matter of conjecture now that reports from Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo give us an idea of the kind of coercive interrogations carried out in our name.
> ...
> Pre-emptive war, we are told, ''can be a justified lesser evil only when the case for it is sustained by evidence that would convince free peoples.'' Some constraint. This is precisely what happened when the Bush administration convinced both Ignatieff and the American people that an American invasion of Iraq was justified and urgent. Since even Ignatieff now admits it ''does not appear to have had a pre-emptive justification at all,'' what moral value are we supposed to put on the fact that a majority of frightened Americans were persuaded to believe their president? Does that make the invasion a lesser evil because for a while we thought it was morally all right? Ethics should be made of sterner stuff.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...ence/Times Topics/People/I/Ignatieff, Michael


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I will rephrase, to help you understand: You know Chyczij's conduct was unseemly and contrary to principles you have espoused, but you don't have the principles to admit that your arguments were half-baked and wrong.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> I will rephrase, to help you understand: You know Chyczij's conduct was unseemly and contrary to principles you have espoused, but you don't have the principles to admit that your arguments were half-baked and wrong.


Chyczij helplessly watched while the Liberal party apparatchiks forced, via a less than democratic process, a candidate upon the riding association. With limited time (24 hours) and resources he, and otheres, tried to offer themselves as alternative candidates, but the party "fix" was in.

Ignatieff grabbed the candidacy with little care for the democratic process of candidate nomination. After all, he is a professor from Harvard. What time does he have for quaint exercises such as open nomination meetings and open debates? 

As for Chyczij's conduct;


> Ron Chyczij of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore Federal Liberal Association said Friday he chose to step down just days before Monday's vote because he could "no longer in good conscience'' support Michael Ignatieff.
> ...
> Chyczij said voters can choose between two other credible candidates: Liam McHugh-Russell of the NDP and John Capobianco of the Conservatives.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/elxn_ignatieff_0601120/20060120/



> "After the nomination fiasco, I've purposely waited on the sidelines to see if Michael Ignatieff can in some way redeem himself as a credible Liberal candidate in this riding. I regret to conclude this has not happened," Chyczij said in a statement.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/20/ignatieff060120.html

Chyczij's actions were that of a responsible and honourable Canadian citizen.
He put party politics aside. Instead he put the good people of his riding association, and riding, first and foremost.
That is the calling card of grass roots democrat.

On the contrary, it was Ignatieff's conduct that was unseemly. He knowingly took part in a coup d'etat of the nominaton process. He grabbed the ill gotten nomination knowing full well that the riding associaton was severely divided over his nomination and his views. Knowing full well that the process was not open and fair. 

He and his Liberal conspirators should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating this travesty.

As our Quebec friends say; "Je me souviens."


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Liberated?


Uhhh-huh... They were indeed very happy the war was over with however what I said specifically was *I know how the Germans felt about American force and occupation.*

Feelings towards the American force and especially occupation were not so "warm and fuzzy"... I know this from listening to many family members and their friends... their accounts of how things were. That's about all I can say... I have no links nor do I care to get into it further... I know these people are not liars... 

On the other hand I might add that I know the Canadian forces were much more respected and people said "thank-you for liberating us" (the Dutch)... it's all in how a country treats people even during war one must realize the whole country full of people is not the enemy... something I think the US forgets at times.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Chyczij helplessly watched while the Liberal party apparatchiks...


"apparatchiks" - Even when people draw your attention to this pathetic habit, you keep macspectrumming1.

As for Chyczij... in your fantasy world. In response to your public displays of ignorance on a topic you purport to know so well, I have already posted credible reports of his conduct above at messages 38 and 49. There is no need to repeat them here. 

I'm quite glad he has now jumped to the Conservatives. I hope he hijacks their riding association in the same riding, so he can run against Ignatieff in the next election.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

You really live in your own little world where whatever you believe is unabahsed truth and all else is false.

You can type all you want. It doesn't make your arguments any less silly. Your motives are plain to see.

Somehow you believe that resigning from a riding association and supporting another candidate is "unseemly."

The sad part is that you have absolutely no idea how delusional you are.

I hope Ignatieff runs for Liberal leadership.
My cheque book is ready for the "Anyone but Ignatieff" campaign.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Somehow you believe that resigning from a riding association and supporting another candidate is "unseemly."


Actually, what I said was this:


> Your support of Chyczij is transparently hypocritical. The worst part of it is that, while you rip Ignatieff for being a parachute candidate and deride Harper relentlessly, you defend Chyczij:
> • for insinuating himself into a riding association where he doesn't live, in order to advance his personal political ambitions;
> • for hijacking the riding association by engineering a perverse and divisive ethnic-based coup;
> • for doing so on the neck of an incumbent from his own party;
> • for betraying his party and supporting Harper, when his personal political ambitions were thwarted.


References:

 Grit MP's riding association subject to 'hostile take-over'

 Liberal riding president resigns, endorses Conservative


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> • for hijacking the riding association by engineering a perverse and divisive ethnic-based coup;


more "code"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> more "code"
> why don't you just come out and say that you hate Ukrainians


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


>


walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You really live in your own little world where whatever you believe is unabahsed truth and all else is false.
> 
> You can type all you want. It doesn't make your arguments any less silly. Your motives are plain to see.
> 
> ...


Thought I'd save this one too. More choice quotes from someone who projects so well.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....


:clap: 

You do realize that you're describing yourself extremely well in recent posts, don't you? You're also giving support to nxnw's newly defined term. Maybe you should ease up, the readers don't need anymore help determining these things about you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> more "code"
> why don't you just come out and say that you hate Ukrainians


I can assure you that this is not so. Had another ethnic identity been exploited to hijack a riding association, and then to stir up anger against its party's eventual nominee, I would have been equally critical. You would have been critical too, in that case.

Indeed, it seems to me that members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community, exploited in this manner, might be this guy's harshest critics.

I hope you will withdraw your slur.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

you discount, out of hand, Luciuk a well known Canadian scholar, call Chyczij's actions 'unseemly' and have made disparaging comments towards me

All 3 are Ukrainian-Canadians.
What are the odds?



> First, just to out our personal backgrounds, I am Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors. You are of Ukranian background.
> 
> It would be nice if someone of your background would not look for ways to drive wedges between our communities. It does you no credit you to go on the offensive as a response to the involvement of Ukrainians in nazi war crimes, antisemitic pogroms, etc. That's history. Get used to it.


http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=36739&page=3&highlight=ukrainian+criminal
your agenda seems very clear


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The problem, MacSpectrum, is you, not your heritage. 

You post a lot and I consider much or what you say to be simple-minded and ignorant, even when your overt political views are similar to mine. Moreover, when you disagree with someone, instead of backing up your opinion with a cogent response, you slur them with references to jackboots, apparatchiks, and ultimately racism. Yes, you have one thing right. I do hold you in low regard. It is, however, based on what you say, not who you are.

Every time you say "Harpo" or "Iggy" or accuse somebody of being a fascist, you reinforce my negative opinion. I don't speak for anyone else, but I am sure I am not alone in this. 

Again, I am asking you to withdraw your slur.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

To briefly comment on the quote about war crimes, etc., added to MacSpectrum's post by a subsequent edit, it is not apparent to me how this demonstrates antagonism toward people of Ukrainian background. It does criticise certain people, like Luciuk, who treat the prosecution of an alleged war criminal who is Ukrainian as an attack on the Ukrainian-Canadian community. MacSpectrum also disregards the following, from the same discussion:


me said:


> In any event, there were certainly elements of Ukrainian society who were allies of the Nazis and committed atrocities. That does not contradict Sopinka's submission that Ukrainians were not "general allies" of the Nazis. Neither does it deny that other elements of Ukrainian society not only fought the Nazis but rescued Jews — many such Ukrainians have been recognized and honoured by Yad Vashem as "Righteous among the Nations".


Again, please withdraw your slur. It was groundless and hurtful.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> The problem, MacSpectrum, is you, not your heritage.
> 
> You post a lot and I consider much or what you say to be simple-minded and ignorant, even when your overt political views are similar to mine. Moreover, when you disagree with someone, instead of backing up your opinion with a cogent response, you slur them with references to jackboots, apparatchiks, and ultimately racism. Yes, you have one thing right. I do hold you in low regard.
> 
> ...


Since you have openly stated that your problem is with me and not my Ukrainian heritage, I'll take you at your word and withdraw my comment "why don't you just come out and say that you hate Ukrainians"

It does seem odd that you hold such disdain for 3 members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> It does seem odd that you hold such disdain for 3 members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community.


I haven't much love for Adolf Hitler, Ernest Zundel, or Scorpions. I must be anti-German! 

What if I dislike Celine Dion, Stockwell Day, and William Shatner? Is that a hate-crime in Canada or something? :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> What if I dislike Celine Dion, Stockwell Day, and William Shatner? Is that a hate-crime in Canada or something?


It could be a sign of good taste....


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Just an observation here... not taking sides... this:



> First, just to out our personal backgrounds, I am Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors. You are of Ukranian background.
> 
> *It would be nice if someone of your background* would not look for ways to drive wedges between our communities. It does you no credit you to go on the offensive as a response to the involvement of Ukrainians in nazi war crimes, antisemitic pogroms, etc. That's history. Get used to it.


... might have been a little offensive to me if it were me on the receiving end. Just an observation... it seems "things" have just spun out of control from there...

This is the beginning *and* the end of my diplomatic arbitration career... just wanted to mention it...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Dreambird said:


> This ... might have been a little offensive to me if it were me on the receiving end. Just an observation... it seems "things" have just spun out of control from there...


 It is important to take the particular comment in context. MacSpectrum had attacked Irwin Cotler respecting Ukrainian-Jewish relations and, in my view, his attack was unjustified. Our backgrounds were relevant to the discussion.

I recognize that the particular comment could have been phrased more sensitively, but I hope you will recognize that its substance was that bridges should be built between our communities. It was my feeling that Macspectrum's comments (and the authority he cited) were destructive. If my views were not clear from the first post, the follow up quoted in this thread should have amply clarified them.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> *[...] as the founder and editor of Cité Libre, a dissident journal that helped provide the intellectual basis for the Quiet Revolution.*
> Required 9-5 hours, I'm sure.


Probably more.



> *An associate professor of law at the Université de Montréal from 1961 to 1965[...]*
> An associate professor, or just an assistant professor? What did he lecture on? How often?


"Just" an assistant prof? Assistant professors are usually the hardest-working professors, because it's the non-tenured entry-level of professorship. It doesn't mean "one who assists a real professor" but "one who aspires to associate professorship." Lazy ones don't last four years. Associates are either tenured or tenure-track. Laziness is possible among the tenured, but it's less common than you might think. 

In any case, AFAIK Trudeau didn't stick around long enough to get tenure. He taught constitutional law, but a quick search doesn't turn up information about his course load. Why assume it was anything less than a normal full load comparable to his colleagues'?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Since you have openly stated that your problem is with me and not my Ukrainian heritage, I'll take you at your word and withdraw my comment "why don't you just come out and say that you hate Ukrainians"
> 
> It does seem odd that you hold such disdain for 3 members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community.


I wish you could have really withdrawn the comment, without the proviso.

lpkmckenna makes the point well. I'll add that the 2 "members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community" (the ones aside from you) were your choices. They were introduced by you to advance unreasonable positions you were pressing and you exposed them to warranted criticism when you did so. Don't make it sound like I have been targeting Ukrainian-Canadians for criticism, because it isn't true.

I criticize plenty of people.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

nxnw said:


> I criticize plenty of people.


That you do sir, but you do it fairly.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

nxnw said:


> I recognize that the particular comment could have been phrased more sensitively, but I hope you will recognize that its substance was that bridges should be built between our communities. It was my feeling that Macspectrum's comments (and the authority he cited) were destructive. If my views were not clear from the first post, the follow up quoted in this thread should have amply clarified them.


Again... I really don't want to take sides as I'm quite new here so I'm not as familiar with the people here as some others are so it wouldn't be fair of me to comment... it was just an observation on my part. I find that WWII is still like a fresh wound to so many people... easy to rub salt into... strange considering it's been over for 60+ years but... it was incredibly nasty... 

I couldn't agree more with your point that bridges should be built between communities involved in these things... we need some healing of the wounds IMO...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> I recognize that the particular comment could have been phrased more sensitively, but I hope you will recognize that its substance was that bridges should be built between our communities. It was my feeling that Macspectrum's comments (and the authority he cited) were destructive.
> ...
> I wish you could have really withdrawn the comment, without the proviso.
> 
> ...


from the Deschenes Commission report


> The Report found that public estimates of the number of war criminals allegedly living in Canada had become grossly exaggerated, expanding from a "handful" or "several hundred" in the mid-1970s to "thousands" by the mid-1980s. Some exaggeration may have resulted from the casual lumping together of "war criminals" and "war-time collaborators," some from blanket accusations against all members of certain military units such as the "Galicia" or "Halychyna" Division (which the Commission formally cleared of collective war crimes), and still more from duplication.
> ...
> The Commission found prima facie of war crimes in just 20 cases


and yet Littman continues with his book *PURE SOLDIERS or SINISTER LEGION*, published May 2003
from the website promoting the book;


> The Jewish community fought a brief, but futile, battle to persuade those governments to deny them entry, denouncing them as a "sinister legion" of "bloodthirsty murderers"--war criminals who had engaged in the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians.
> ...
> In spelling out the Division's history, the author attempts to shed light on this acrimonious dispute that rages to the present day.


and then by nxnw himself;


> It would be nice if someone of your background would not look for ways to drive wedges between our communities. It does you no credit you to go on the offensive as a response to the involvement of Ukrainians in nazi war crimes, antisemitic pogroms, etc. That's history. Get used to it.


Just what does "etc." mean?

I guess the Deschenes Commission report was not enough ?
once more in case you missed it;


> The Commission found prima facie of war crimes in just 20 cases
> ...
> the "Galicia" or "Halychyna" Division (which the Commission formally cleared of collective war crimes)


Bridge building indeed.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It is ridiculous to pre-suppose that Ukrainians did not take part in war crimes in WWII, just as it is to suggest that a mere 20 war criminals (of any ethnicity) made it to Canada. The Deschenes commission actually stated there were only 20 solid cases to go to court at the time, and that many many more could go with some more fact-gathering.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> It is ridiculous to pre-suppose that Ukrainians did not take part in war crimes in WWII, just as it is to suggest that a mere 20 war criminals (of any ethnicity) made it to Canada. The Deschenes commission actually stated there were only 20 solid cases to go to court at the time, and that many many more could go with some more fact-gathering.


I didn't say that.
Just that it is hardly the "thousands" reported by certain sources.
The Ukrainian Canadian Congress is in favour of criminal trials of alleged war criminals in Canada.
http://www.ucc.ca/Section_5/War_Crimes_Program_Undermines_Canadian_Citizenship/
and more
http://www.ucc.ca/Section_5/ukrainians_during_ww2/



> October 23, 1998, the Honourable A. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, informed the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association that:
> 
> "I also agree with your position in respect of the Galicia Division of the Waffen SS who were admitted to Canada in 1950. This matter was considered by the Honourable Jules Deschênes in his report on war criminals in Canada. As you may know, Mr. Justice Deschênes concluded that mere membership in the Division was insufficient to justify prosecution. In addition, he found that no revocation of citizenship case could be made against individuals based on their membership in the Division since the Government of the day was fully aware of that membership.
> 
> Despite this, over a number of years the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Section of the Department of Justice has, in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, investigated allegations against individual members of the Division. In particular, all archival and investigative records of relevance in Eastern Europe have been reviewed since the collapse of the former Soviet Union. [...] Particular attention has been paid to identify any specific individuals who may have had involvement in police units or other German-controlled organizations prior to joining the Division. The evidence we have been able to uncover is insufficient to merit the commencement of court proceedings against any members of the Division."


Smearing an entire community for the crimes of a very few hardly builds bridges.
Innocent until proven guilty, or so I thought.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacSpectrum, you're also distorting Deschenes as pertaining to Ukrainians in particular. It doesn't. It pertains to war criminals, some of whom were Ukrainians. Further, the allegation about "thousands", which the Deschenes commission held to be exaggerated, was about war criminals living in Canada *now*, not Ukrainians alleged to be war criminals. In no way, either, did the Deschenes commission say that there were not thousands of war criminals, how many were from particular countries, etc. It was concerned with how many are now in Canada, and what should be done to bring them to justice.

Littman's book, you also fail to mention, was about a Waffen-SS Division manned by Ukrainians. Littman does not "smear the whole community", he does not make allegations against all Ukrainians or all Ukrainian soldiers. _You_ vilify Littman, however, for criticizing Nazis! 

The Nuremberg tribunal declared the SS a criminal organization, condemning all those who joined it voluntarily. This is from the tribunal's judgment:


> The SS played a particularly significant role in the persecution of the Jews. The SS was directly involved in the demonstrations of 10 November, 1938. The evacuation of the Jews from occupied territories was carried out under the directions of the SS with the assistance of SS Police units. The extermination of the Jews was carried out under the direction of the SS central organizations. It was actually put into effect by SS formations. The Einsatzgruppen engaged in wholesale massacres of the Jews. SS Police units were also involved. For example, the massacre of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto was carried out under the directions of SS Brigadefuehrer and Major General of the Police Stroop. A special group from the SS central organization arranged for the deportation of Jews from various Axis satellites, and their extermination was carried out in the concentration camps run by the WVHA.
> 
> It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities. The Allgemeine SS was an active participant in the persecution of the Jews and was used as a source of concentration camp guards. Units of the Waffen-SS were directly involved in the killing of prisoners of war and the atrocities in occupied countries. It supplied personnel for the Einsatzgruppen, and had command over the concentration camp guards after its absorption of the Totenkopf SS, which originally controlled the system. Various SS Police units were also widely used in the atrocities in occupied countries and the extermination of the Jews there. The SS central organization supervised the activities of these various formations and was responsible for such special projects as the human experiments and "final solution" of the Jewish question.


You can be proud of your background and heritage without defending war criminals and Nazis who happened to be Ukrainian. Keep in mind, as well, that these SS troops also murdered non-Jewish Ukrainian civilians.

And, "etc." means other anti-Semitic acts. I wish it were not so. I would like to think you feel the same and think of this history with sadness.

Dreambird - you should not wonder that the Holocaust remains a fresh wound. For context, consider this: I am in my 40s. My 4 grandparents, 6 of my father's 8 siblings, all 7 of my mother's siblings — 13 of my aunts and uncles, not including their spouses — the spouses of all of those siblings who were married and all of my parents' nieces and nephews — my first cousins — were so thoroughly extinguished by the Nazis that I don't even know what any one of them looked like*. 

It should remain a fresh wound forever, because it unhealthy for a society to forget that human beings are capable of such atrocities. Vilifying someone because he calls the SS murderers? I know this is not MacSpectrums intent, but it debases the memory of their victims.

*None of this, by the way, happened in Ukraine.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*nxnw*... I'm sorry about your family... there's nothing I can say to make that pain go away...  
But just so you understand I'm not advocating forgetting it happened just healing... the scar unfortunately always remains. Just as I had a severely broken ankle back in 1994 that was surgically repaired and it healed there are scars on my ankle and some pain now and then when the joint is overworked, weather conditions whatever... it's not possible to forget it happened but it is healed...  Maybe that's a simplistic comparison but it's the best I can think of right now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Littman's book, you also fail to mention, was about a Waffen-SS Division manned by Ukrainians. Littman does not "smear the whole community", he does not make allegations against all Ukrainians or all Ukrainian soldiers. _You_ vilify Littman, however, for criticizing Nazis!


I don't see where Littman was vilified. 
I find it ironic that a man who seems to have found a scapegoat in Ukrainians would write a book about an SS unit. Sol Littman, in my opinion, is something of a loose cannon that may have hurt his causes. Sol was once the Director of the Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and clearly has an agenda to promote with this book.
This is not to say that that members of that unit did not commit war crimes. Yes they were volunteers, most believed that this would help establish and independent Ukrainian state, by fighting the Soviets.

There have been more scholarly books written about the Galicia unit than the one by Sol Littman. 

The Deschene Commission did have this to say about the unit:


> While in [POW camps in] Italy these men were screened by Soviet and British missions and neither then nor subsequently has any evidence brought to light which would suggest that any of them fought against the Western Allies or engaged in crimes against humanity. Their behaviour since they came to this country has been good and they have never indicated in any way that they are infected with any trace of Nazi ideology... From the reports of the special mission set up by the War Office to screen these men it seems clear that they volunteered to fight against the Red Army from nationalistic motives which were given greater impetus by the behaviour of the Soviet authorities during their earlier occupation of the Western Ukraine after the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Although Communist propaganda has constantly attempted to depict these, like so many other refugees, as "quislings" and "war criminals" it is interesting to note that no specific charges of war crimes have been made by the Soviet or any other Government against any member of this group."


and


> 56- The Galicia Division (14. Waffengrenadierdivision der SS [gal. #1]) should not be indicted as a group.
> 57- The members of Galicia Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada.
> 58- Charges of war crimes of Galicia Division have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this Commission.
> 59- Further, in the absence of evidence of participation or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.
> ...


----------

