Dion's famous first words.

Boy, and you were the one decrying faction forming. The Libs should be grateful they didn't get Iggy in the top spot if this how he's going to run things as a loser.

Perhaps it would be best for Iggy to return to the Ivory tower. His little foray into the real world is looking more and more like a mistake.

I doubt very much that you're helping his popularity or credibility. Keep up the good work.

There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!

However, the above statement infers that Dion and Kennedy did something wrong. The only argument I see as valid in this case is that they exploited the rules which were in place. The reason for this seems to be a strategic one, and not an immoral one. I would argue that it points to a flaw in the system and not the candidates themselves. I cannot hold them to account for using these rules in the way that they feel is most benificial to their respective careers. If Dion and Kennedy felt they complimented eachother politically, then what they had done made sense to them. Your argument makes a valid case for change, but I done think you have a case for impropriety on the part of any of these candidates.

Kennedy has spoken often about why he went to Dion, and it is naive to think someone would offer his support unless a prominent cabinet job would be the reward. He's hardly going to quit the race and disappoint all his own organizers just to go back to the unemployment line.

Firecat, the interesting thing is that Kennedy made a terrific blunder by quitting when he did!

It was a silly mistake where he checked the total votes but not how the votes were moving. HE WAS ACTUALLY GAINING, when he quit, misreading the voting numbers.

On that I agree. Iggy definitely will not succeed to the leadership if there's the faintest whiff of Martin-Chretien style feuding going on between Dion and Ignatieff's staffs.
So think on't

It's astonishing yet at least refreshingly forthright that you willing identify yourself as a factionalist. It is such a mindset that reads a reminder of what has become of factionalized parties in history as a form of "threat"

This is why Trudeau won and won and won, then Chretien won, and won and won... then Martin and his supporters with their mindset lost.

You don't care to address the expectation of joining a party and going into government at the very top as PM? You don't elect us to elect a complete amateur in that fiueld to the highest office in the country?

Boy, and you were the one decrying faction forming. The Libs should be grateful they didn't get Iggy in the top spot if this how he's going to run things as a loser.

Perhaps it would be best for Iggy to return to the Ivory tower. His little foray into the real world is looking more and more like a mistake.

I doubt very much that you're helping his popularity or credibility. Keep up the good work.

Dude, you're a bore. (Which school are you pretending to attend today?)

It's as clear as day. I used my eyes.

Glad to see you making more friends. I'm sure you're doing a good job pumping the boards. I know my view of Iggy has changed for your efforts. I'm still not sure that Lily wasn't right and that you take your checks from Dorris.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

USCAdad USCAdad:

Dude, you're a bore. (Which school are you pretending to attend today?)

It's as clear as day. I used my eyes.

Glad to see you making more friends. I'm sure you're doing a good job pumping the boards. I know my view of Iggy has changed for your efforts. I'm still not sure that Lily wasn't right and that you take your checks from Dorris.

Well, my fake american who claims a degree in Philosophy from Reed, let me tell you a few things.

$1:

One of the reasons that Iggy faced hurdles, was a perceived closeness to the US. So anyone claiming to be an American and who says that Iggy is not OK - is quite OK with me.

So which is it? Am I ok with you or not. You're starting to slip into sycophant babble again would be my guess. Oh, that's right, I'm a fake American (you're a noob. I was born in Colorado to good bible thumping theocrats. Just about everyone here knows that because I rail against the fundies.) Now there are many that would agree with you on the American extreme right but what do their views matter? Perhaps Iggy's position on torture was the first sign that he floated on the political wind looking to regain the power of his ancestors. Russian spies have been the rage in Canada lately.

$1:

Go somewhere else, and get convinced my friend, I am not wasting time on you. You see, you should use your head first.

Oh, no need, I'm convinced. Your impeccable arguments and poise have done the job. I actually did find a copy of "The Rights Revolution" laying around the house (the GFs). I'll peruse it this weekend. Like you said, Iggy has a long trail. I enjoyed reading his defense of water boarding.

$1:

Despite their hesitation, I think Firecat, Lily and myself, and certainly Delvin and myself, have found a lot of areas where different factions can work together, as long as honesty and good systems are the priority.

Their posts don't seem to indicate that, but then again this wouldn't be the first time you were hopelessly wrong on this board now would it? I'll let them speak for themselves.

$1:

Firecat, is a frustrated Kennedy man, but I don't have problems conversing with him.

He is not a waste of time like you! :twisted:

Firecat Firecat:

You don't care to address the expectation of joining a party and going into government at the very top as PM? You don't elect us to elect a complete amateur in that fiueld to the highest office in the country?

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Sorry, but you are a pot calling the kettle black!

Unlike Ignatieff, Dion is no amateur. Dion was Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in successive cabinets responsible for an extremely tricky file at a time when the Separatists were a looming threat.
was also in the Martin Cabinet.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

According to you, it is quite OK for Dion to create a faction, by joining a fund raiser for Kennedy, it is OK for your faction to favour friends, but other factions must cooperate and in fact help you build your faction!

Get real, my friend! Why would we put our shoulders to the wheel, and contribute in money and effort when your group ( you being a Kennedy slave, now sold to Dion, in the Montreal slave market,) is busy lining their pockets with the money that should rightfully be used for the next election?

Until the Dion Kennedy deal, there were NO factions, remember? Iggy refused to take a single dying candidate, remember? Iggy refused to help with anyone's borrowings, remember?

It is only you who have imagined a Dion-Kennedy "faction" that excludes all others based on the observation a fund-rasising event that only you perceive as a threat to overall Party contributions.

Since you are obsessed with that let's consider that presumption:

You complain that people who go to the joint event to help Kennedy & Dion pay off their respective campaign will thereby give nothing to the Party in General.

You have already stated that Dion wasn't the choice of all the candidates. I presume then that those others would not buy tickets to the Dion/Kennedy dinner. They will buy tickets to dinners for their own candidate to repay the cost of a campaign that likely could not have happened in the first place without borrowed money .

It is incumbent then upon supporters to pay for their candidate's campaign but that just does not or should not preclude their support directed to the Party's war chest. If they then refuse to support the Party they are aren't very good Party members (fair-weather friends). Or they're just rightly branded sore losers. I return to the example of my contribution to a charity does not mean I don't contribute to another that I believe. My support for my candidate was part of my support for the Party, not the other way around.
To return then to your earlier insistence that Dion, by doing this event with Kennedy, is somehow doing something unethical, I quote you to say "Get Real!" Why shouldn't he help the guy who ensured his victory? That's how it should be or he'd pretty damned ungrateful. That's no way to foster loyalty which is currency in politics. As far as helping other defeated candidates he hardly owes them his help for having lost to him.

It's up to the defeated candidates and supporters to pay for their own gamble. you can't go up to the betting booth after your horse loses and ask that the winner pay for your bet.

besides the Kennedy fundraiser needed a star attraction to justify the cost per plate and Bill Clinton wasn't available so Dion agreed to fill in for him. ROTFL

you made your bed, you lie on it!

Unlike Ignatieff, Dion is no amateur. Dion was Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs in successive cabinets responsible for an extremely tricky file at a time when the Separatists were a looming threat.
was also in the Martin Cabinet.

That wasn't a man of honour talking. It was hardly the new politics. It was an example of him looking over his shoulder, seeing the dark shadow of pollsters in pursuit, about to smother the light within

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!

Delwin Delwin:

However, the above statement infers that Dion and Kennedy did something wrong. The only argument I see as valid in this case is that they exploited the rules which were in place. The reason for this seems to be a strategic one, and not an immoral one. I would argue that it points to a flaw in the system and not the candidates themselves. I cannot hold them to account for using these rules in the way that they feel is most benificial to their respective careers. If Dion and Kennedy felt they complimented eachother politically, then what they had done made sense to them. Your argument makes a valid case for change, but I done think you have a case for impropriety on the part of any of these candidates.

Thanks delvin, we have made good progress. But how do I answer your question? Let me try an imaginary situation.

Let us say your work requires you to go to Saudi Arabia, where four wives are allowed. By marrying three more women, you have not broken rules, and your reasons are strategic (sex outside marriage is punishable with death) and not immoral (the marriage to four women is allowed by Allah) and you have merely exploited the rules (the law actually, since it is a sharia state.)

But most Canadians would instantly see that you have done wrong!

Now, in our example you are merely a citizen, but the leader of the party is not only the arbitrator of rules, he must make rules. He should follow rules in letter and spirit. He should have the moral standing to create rules!

Go back to my example of contributions versus borrowings:

Kennedy
Raised 369,038 Borrowed 201,750

Ignatieff
Raised 917,814 Borrowed 170,000

Dion
Raised 253,636 Borrowed 430,000

Rae
Raised 843,860 Borrowed 845,000

Do you think that each one borrowed to the maximum available? Then, Delvin, you are mistaken, because Ignatieff, when I counted last had promises of over 5 million in loans! People not only gave him a million in contributions, as above, but another five times as much was available.

Iggy refused to use the facility, though he was told repeatedly that others were borrowing heavily. His point was simple, if he won, how would he repay it? He could only do what Dion and Kennedy do now, namely, take from well wishers what should rightly be our next election treasure chest!

At the time, we were in Iggy's Isabella street office, a crowded hot place in summer without A/c, there was no money for that, and some of us brought fans from home and our own computers. Yet everyone cheered Iggy when he took his stand.

A great leader, Delvin is one who sees rules which are not yet written down!

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

There must have been some ugly deals, to make Kennedy go over to Dion, and have joint fund raisers now!

Delwin Delwin:

Your argument makes a valid case for change, but I done think you have a case for impropriety on the part of any of these candidates.

Always4Iggy Always4Iggy:

Do you think that each one borrowed to the maximum available? Then, Delvin, you are mistaken, because Ignatieff, when I counted last had promises of over 5 million in loans! People not only gave him a million in contributions, as above, but another five times as much was available

Iggy refused to use the facility, though he was told repeatedly that others were borrowing heavily. His point was simple, if he won, how would he repay it? He could only do what Dion and Kennedy do now, namely, take from well wishers what should rightly be our next election treasure chest!

At the time, we were in Iggy's Isabella street office, a crowded hot place in summer without A/c, there was no money for that, and some of us brought fans from home and our own computers. Yet everyone cheered Iggy when he took his stand.

A great leader, Delvin is one who sees rules which are not yet written down!

Delwin Delwin:

O.K, now consider that Ignatieff had the second largest campaign fund out of all the canidates and explain how his borrowing of $5 million would have been justifiable.So if we are looking at amount of spending per candidate, and consider that dion and kennedy joined forces, this was actually the fairest method possible since no other combination would have reduced the diffence in spending to a lower amount. Do the math.

So which is more fair, equality in spending or, the candidate with the most donations wins, in terms of a leader?

All that and you still lost.