Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Stephane Dion New Liberal Leader


franck5890

Recommended Posts

Guest ChriS_HigGinS#1

Wawaweewa! I thought Ken Dryden was running also would've been much better to see Dryden as our next Prime-Minister (wering a Habs jersey of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it wasn't Ray.

I was personally hoping for Iggy though. Dion reminds me too much of Chretien, who was alright, but is not the guy you want leading your country in the time of "war". Canada is still suffering from Chretien's Chinook replacement disaster. Say what you want about Harper, but our military is finally starting to get some equipment. And I don't mean 20 year old half broken equipment that our allies don't want, I mean actual new equipment like the Globemaster II's that we should be getting in a couple of years. The Liberals got us into the War with Afghanistan and then send our troops to the desert in jungle camoflauge, in 40 year old Hercs, with no helocoptor support.

Iggy would at least support our military, unlike most of the Liberals, while still standing up for Human Rights and hopefully the environment)

Anyways, now I can't vote for Harper because of the envronment and also I really don't want to see him get a majority (I like minority governments better). I can't vote for Layton based on the War with Afghanistan and numerous other things he's done to upset me lately (I voted for Layton last election). I may vote for Dion depending on how I feel at election time. I'll probably just end up voting Green, not because I want them to run the country, but because I'm too patriotic to not vote, but at the same time I hate all the other parties too much.

In Ontario, I'm still supporting NDP and Hampton though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that Ignatieff would have been the best choice for the betterment of the party. He's more center/to the right of center than most Liberals nowadays, which is likely a reason why he lost some support of the party (not to mention some of the comments he made through the campaign). But the reason I believe he was the best choice was because of his "spectral position"; he could appeal to the "small-c Conservatives that would sort of sit on the fence between the two. Dion and Rae were both more "leftist" than Ignatieff, so the Liberals will likely miss out on this crowd, which is unfortunate for them because that crowd is really the difference between the parties right now.

I liked Dion better than Rae, but I believe Dion will have a hard time appealing to the provinces as he moves west of Quebec. Being previously affiliated with the PQ and in some ways the Bloq really don't help his cause among anyone right of center.

It was interesting though, I don't believe many people expected it; he was sort of quiet; fourth in the polls after the first ballot, but what really pushed him over was the support from Kennedy. Then, with Rae out, again using the political spectrum as an argument, most of his supporters would naturally support Dion, so there you had it.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Liberals after the recent governments, but I feel good for the guy, and am optimistic. It took a lot of work to get there, and hopefully he'll be better than his predecessors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Dion better than Rae

Ray was okay, but there were some things that I absoluteely hated about him

1.) He was apparntly a pretty awful premier, although I was too young to know for sure

2.) He would have taken votes from the NDP and would have helped Harper get a majority next election (Harper is going to win again, thats for sure, only question is minority vs majority)

3.) That stupid letter he wrote telling people to vote Liberal in some Ontario riding (not mentioning that he was now a Liberal), he gave up provincial politics and should really mind his own business; it was just a stupid plot to prove that he was "one of them"

4.) I have to question someone who switches party when their new party gives them a better chance to win

5.) And this is the major one for me, his support for deregulating tuition accross Ontario, for a "lefty" that is an INCREDIBLY right wing recommendation and one that I absolutely hate.

It was interesting though, I don't believe many people expected it; he was sort of quiet; fourth in the polls after the first ballot, but what really pushed him over was the support from Kennedy. Then, with Rae out, again using the political spectrum as an argument, most of his supporters would naturally support Dion, so there you had it.

Actually news articles were saying he had a pretty good shot. Because although he didn't have much first balot support, there weren't a lot of people who hated him. He kind of fell in the middle. And with the top two first balot candidates being kind of "niche" guys, they couldn't build much on their initial voting base. The media were saying there was a decent chance of that happening in the past week or so. They figured it was Iggy on the final ballot, but that he'd have a hard time winning it.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Liberals after the recent governments, but I feel good for the guy, and am optimistic. It took a lot of work to get there, and hopefully he'll be better than his predecessors.

Paul Martin was a failure as PM, but he did a very good job as finance minister. Chretian did a lot of good things, but he also had some major screwups (the military being one of them). I'm just thankful we had him when the War with Iraq started. He took a lot of heat for it, but looking at the US now, glad we're not stuck there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TORHABSFAN

I couldn't be Happier!!!

Congrats to Mr. Dion!! Finally My Party is united and strong again behined a great leader. Dion is the perfect man for the Job. A lot of simalrities to Prime Minister Chretian. This is the man that will Lead Canada back to Koyoto who will lead the World on Enviromental Issues. Canada and the World will be a better place for this move. The future is bright for the Party. The Future is bright for our enviroment, the future is bright for National Unity and the Future is bright for Canada!!!

Congrats Mr. Dion soon to be Prime Minister Dion!! Via la Liberal and Via la Canada!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of simalrities to Prime Minister Chretian.  This is the man that will Lead Canada back to Koyoto who will lead the World on Enviromental Issues.  

The same Kyoto that Chretian signed with no intention of ever following? I remember grade 10 science (this is a few years ago now), learning about how Canada's emissionas which were supposed to go down some percent had actually gotten worse since it was signed. At least Harper is honest about not supporting the thing.

Also, it seems to me that a lot of people who say they support the environment aren't willing to actually give up anything to support the environment. They want the government to crack down on stuff while they sit in their air conditioned houses, drive their SUVs, trucks, sports car, etc., leave the lights on, won't spend money on economic bathroom fixtures or electronics, etc.

The government has a part in taking care of the environment, but so do the rest of us. And I'm not talking about recycling or other stuff that takes no effort and really doesn't do much at all, I mean actually living a bit less luxuriously to help the environment. Plus say the government were to do something for the environment like ban any vehicle that doesn't get at least 30mpg, there would be such a huge outcry and they'd never get elected again.

I'm guilty of this myself, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest leafsreallysuck
At least it wasn't Ray.

I was personally hoping for Iggy though.  Dion reminds me too much of Chretien, who was alright, but is not the guy you want leading your country in the time of "war". Canada is still suffering from Chretien's Chinook replacement disaster.  Say what you want about Harper, but our military is finally starting to get some equipment. And I don't mean 20 year old half broken equipment that our allies don't want, I mean actual new equipment like the Globemaster II's that we should be getting in a couple of years. The Liberals got us into the War with Afghanistan and then send our troops to the desert in jungle camoflauge, in 40 year old Hercs, with no helocoptor support.

Iggy would at least support our military, unlike most of the Liberals, while still standing up for Human Rights and hopefully the environment)

Anyways, now I can't vote for Harper because of the envronment and also I really don't want to see him get a majority (I like minority governments better). I can't vote for Layton based on the War with Afghanistan and numerous other things he's done to upset me lately (I voted for Layton last election). I may vote for Dion depending on how I feel at election time.  I'll probably just end up voting Green, not because I want them to run the country, but because I'm too patriotic to not vote, but at the same time I hate all the other parties too much.

In Ontario, I'm still supporting NDP and Hampton though.

I was hoping for Iggy too. Dion and Chrétien are two things I wan't to forget. Chrétien rode the wave of the economic boom following the last recession and took credit for measures implemented by the Mulroney government. They're both in favor of a strong central government and that's the opposite of what I want. Btw I want strong provincial governements inside a united Canada.

There are some things Harper is doing that I like but his stand on the environment and the shift of our military towards an offensive/oppressive force like the USA is imho a mistake. A very big one I might add. I miss the blue helmet days. Following the US foreign policy can't be a good thing with Bush leading the way. The fact that our military is getting new equipment is a good thing don't get me wrong. The whole Chrétien thing with the helicopters was a total fiasco that is ending up costing a lot more than the Mulroney deal for probably lesser equipment. I won't even get into the submarines thing.

Anyways we'll get to see what Stéphane Dion has to say now that he's the leader, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That's my 2 cents at 4am lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping for Iggy too. Dion and Chrétien are two things I wan't to forget. Chrétien rode the wave of the economic boom following the last recession and took credit for measures implemented by the Mulroney government. They're both in favor of a strong central government and that's the opposite of what I want. Btw I want strong provincial governements inside a united Canada.

There are some things Harper is doing that I like but his stand on the environment and the shift of our military towards an offensive/oppressive force like the USA is imho a mistake. A very big one I might add. I miss the blue helmet days. Following the US foreign policy can't be a good thing with Bush leading the way. The fact that our military is getting new equipment is a good thing don't get me wrong. The whole Chrétien thing with the helicopters was a total fiasco that is ending up costing a lot more than the Mulroney deal for probably lesser equipment. I won't even get into the submarines thing.

Anyways we'll get to see what Stéphane Dion has to say now that he's the leader, hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.

That's my 2 cents at 4am lol!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Sorry I got up a few minutes ago so I'm not in the mood of typing plus you said exactly what I was going to say... :wink:

Now the Block-Q. is going to block us AGAIN and were going to end up having an other minority government at the next elections. I was a Iggy fan since day one and I was positive that he could of somewhat destroyed the Block-Q... Oh well now "we" got a guy who Quebequers don't like at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TORHABSFAN
The same Kyoto that Chretian signed with no intention of ever following? I remember grade 10 science (this is a few years ago now), learning about how Canada's emissionas which were supposed to go down some percent had actually gotten worse since it was signed.  At least Harper is honest about not supporting the thing.

Also, it seems to me that a lot of people who say they support the environment aren't willing to actually give up anything to support the environment. They want the government to crack down on stuff while they sit in their air conditioned houses, drive their SUVs, trucks, sports car, etc., leave the lights on, won't spend money on economic bathroom fixtures or electronics, etc.

The government has a part in taking care of the environment, but so do the rest of us. And I'm not talking about recycling or other stuff that takes no effort and really doesn't do much at all, I mean actually living a bit less luxuriously to help the environment. Plus say the government were to do something for the environment like ban any vehicle that doesn't get at least 30mpg, there would be such a huge outcry and they'd never get elected again.

I'm guilty of this myself, by the way.

you misunderstood my comments. The Simiarlites to Jean Chretien and the enviromental statement are two sepreate statements.

I was in no way saying that Jean Chretien was a champion of the enviroment. However in his defeance he did sign on to Koyoto unlike Mr. Harper who is killing it. Also The Liberal Goverment witch was formed in 1993 had a clear mandate from the people. Balance the budjet. And they did that 9 times in a row. That was the top priority at the time. Should the Enviroment been a bigger issue than, Ofcorse. But we as a sicosity have ingored this issuse for far too long. We the Canadian public are just as quility as any government on this because we nevear sent the message to our elected represeantives that we cared. But that was than this is now. Mr. Dion is the Champion of Change. Mr. Dion will bring us back to Koyoto. Mr. Dion will have Canada Lead the world in Enviromental affiars. We will see change and Canada and the World will be better for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) He was apparntly a pretty awful premier, although I was too young to know for sure

2.) He would have taken votes from the NDP and would have helped Harper get a majority next election (Harper is going to win again, thats for sure, only question is minority vs majority)

Yes, he almost ruined Ontario. But the thing is, any leftist Liberal leader is going to take some votes from the NDP and not be able to sway small-C conservatives. Dion will probably have that problem as well.

lot of simalrities to Prime Minister Chretian]/quote]

That's exactly what this coutnry needs :roll:

I definitely say Dion is better than Chretien, hands down, but still will have trouble appealing to people east of Toronto.

Because of his previous ties with the PQ/BQ, anyone debating between Liberal and Conservative is going to be a little scared. If the Liberals want to beat the Conservatives, Ignatieff was their best chance, as he's the only one that could appeal to any slightly-right/right of center voters (in my mind)

As for Kyoto.. There's so many holes in it that we're better off to formulate our own environmental plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things Harper is doing that I like but his stand on the environment and the shift of our military towards an offensive/oppressive force like the USA is imho a mistake.

But the Afghanistan mission requires offensive military operations, it is not peacekeeping. Should we just leave Afghanistan? They are the Canadian ARMED forces. And if we were to say no more combat, all that would do is put further strain on the American and UK forces while Canadiens are useless. Its simply that Afghanistan doesn't need any more forces to do less combat intensive roles, they need people to engage in combat to take out the Taliban.

I miss the blue helmet days.

If I were a soldier, I think "blue helmet" missions would be the absolute worst. Sometimes they aren't even allowed to shoot back because it could disrupt peace. Your working with soldiers from all different countries (look at that one guy who got shot in some counry and their Jordan "allies" in the mission just took pictures and did nothing to help). Or look at the completely pointless death of the Canadian major in Lebanon. At least if Canadians go in together, they can defend themselves and each other.

Following the US foreign policy can't be a good thing with Bush leading the way.

The Afghanistan mission is led by NATO and backed by the UN. Its not really US foreign policy anymore. And the US isn't completely evil. They make mistakes (Iraq) but also do some good things (which I feel Afghanistan is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he almost ruined Ontario. But the thing is, any leftist Liberal leader is going to take some votes from the NDP and not be able to sway small-C conservatives. Dion will probably have that problem as well.

True, but I think Ray would be the worst. Dion won't take away from the NDP as much, but also won't take anything from the Conservatives

As for Kyoto.. There's so many holes in it that we're better off to formulate our own environmental plan.

But at least its some sort of international standards. I think at least for foreign relations we should be part of the plan. And I don't think most politicians who say "leave Kyoto" do it because we need our own plan, but rather they don't want to support the environment. That was one of my worries about Iggy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you misunderstood my comments.  The Simiarlites to Jean Chretien and the enviromental statement are two sepreate statements.

No I was saying when you said "bring us back to Kyoto", were we ever really in it? Well we'd signed the thing, but we were doing nothing to meet our goals.

And btw, I agree Chretiens government did an excellent job with the budget (Paul Martin to thank for that as well)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TORHABSFAN

Okay let me make this Simlarities to jean Chretien comment clear.

This is how they are similar. Both guys came from a small quite background. In the 1984 Liberal Leadership convention there where doubts that Chertien could win the country and win a election. So the Liberals took john Turner based on the winability label. The thought where that Chertien's english was way too bad to be Pm, they said he wasn't carismatic enough (they where very wrong on that). They said that he couldn't appeal to Canadians outside Quebec. Well John Turner was a Huge flop. And Jean Chertien whetear you like him or not (I personalty love him) ended up winning 3 striaght Majority governements. Chertien never lost a election in 40 years in Politics. Jean Chertien is argubably the most succesful Politician in the History of Canada. This past weekend we almsot saw the same mistake. Iggy's people tried to win on the winabilty tag. They Say Dion can't win. I say that he is far more likely to defeat Harper than Iggy. Dion is a very likable guy with a quite carisma. Over a 5 week campian Dion is more likely to win people over and his stook will rise. Iggy is more likely to stick his foot in his moth over and over and drop over 5 weeks.

As for the rolling eyes thing on Chretien. Whatever we will never agree on that. 7 straight balaced budgets, Won the refrendom thus keeping the County toghther, Kept us out of a iliagal war in iraq where many other PMs would have not. theser are just 3 of many accomplishments I could go on and on but I won't. I love Jean Chretien and our country would have been far better of if Paul Martin and his people never pushed him out.

But thats the past and I am not going to get into that its not in the best intrests of my party. This is the future and the old wars are over. It is time for this party to unite and go foward stong. We Must defeat Stephan harper for the good of the country. We must defeat stephan Harper for the good of the enviroment. we must defeat Stephan Harper to insure a real National Child care program that is not simplay dilivered into your mail box. We must defeat Stephan Harper for national Unity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TORHABSFAN
No I was saying when you said "bring us back to Kyoto", were we ever really in it? Well we'd signed the thing, but we were doing nothing to meet our goals.  

And btw, I agree Chretiens government did an excellent job with the budget (Paul Martin to thank for that as well)

I like how you wrote as well at the end. I get very frustrated when people give Martin all the credit for all the good that happened while Jean was PM. At the same time Trudeau gets all the credit for many of the things than Jean Chretien acomplished as a Cabinit minister.

In both cases it was a team effort a PM should always share the credit with his Cabnit and vise versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Afghanistan mission is led by NATO and backed by the UN. Its not really US foreign policy anymore.  

Only nominally. None of the other NATO countries want to contribute more than a token effort in Afghanistan, which is sliding towards chaos again because the U.S.-installed government is really nothing more than a bunch of drug traffickers, ex-communist warlords, and criminals who can't secure the countryside. In my opinion, the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is futile.

And the US isn't completely evil. They make mistakes (Iraq) but also do some good things (which I feel Afghanistan is)

I don't even think the US is evil. That's Bush rhetoric to me (I'm not trying to offend you, just analyze the language). No one is evil. Countries aren't human beings in any case. But I do think that the US government has shown a tremendous disregard for life in the Middle East, coupled with gross hubris and a belief in its own military invincibility which is coming back to haunt it now. Their actions create the very enemies they want to oppose, and they don't want to use diplomacy because it makes them seem weak. This is not a government that Canada should want to emulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only nominally. None of the other NATO countries want to contribute more than a token effort in Afghanistan

Yes, and thats one of the biggest problems with the mission. The countries are supporting it but not willing to give a full contribution.

which is sliding towards chaos again because the U.S.-installed government is really nothing more than a bunch of drug traffickers, ex-communist warlords, and criminals who can't secure the countryside. In my opinion, the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is futile.

There's no doubt things aren't perfect and will take a long time. Still, and I can't say for sure since I haven't been there, seeing media reports and hearing from people who were there, thigns are slowly improving. The South is moving the slowest, but it sounds like there are even improvements there.

I don't even think the US is evil. That's Bush rhetoric to me (I'm not trying to offend you, just analyze the language). No one is evil. Countries aren't human beings in any case.

All I meant was that just because the US is leading the effort doesn't automatically mean Canada should stay out of it.

But I do think that the US government has shown a tremendous disregard for life in the Middle East, coupled with gross hubris and a belief in its own military invincibility which is coming back to haunt it now. Their actions create the very enemies they want to oppose, and they don't want to use diplomacy because it makes them seem weak. This is not a government that Canada should want to emulate.

No, and like I said, I am incredibly glad we had Chretien to keep us out of Iraq, even though he took a lot of heat for it at the time. Canada needs to make its own decisions, and in war we have to be incredibly careful not to hurt civilians or we do just create more enemies.

the rest of this post isn't directed at you really

And people need to realize the difference between blaming Bush and blaming the USA. The USA is fine when they have a decent leader (which they had for 12 years under Bush's father and Clinton, both good presidents.) Unforutnatley, Americans seem too willing to believe their government no matter what and support a truly awful leader (how Bush was reelected, I'll never know). And Canada needs to find the fine line between sticking with our closest allies and also making our own decisions.

As for life in the middle east, true that I dont' think we have enough regard for them and are going into these countries ignorant to their lifestyles and beliefs. Every civilian casualty is a tragedy, and we must do more to reduce them. However, at the same time people in the middle east really need to stop supporting extremism and care about people who don't support their religion. Look at what Israel has to go through, its horrible. THe wars Israel starts aren't nice, they kill a lot of innocent people, but at the same time, imagine if you lived there, between a bunch of countries who want you literally wiped off the face of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest leafsreallysuck
But the Afghanistan mission requires offensive military operations, it is not peacekeeping. Should we just leave Afghanistan? They are the Canadian ARMED forces.  And if we were to say no more combat, all that would do is put further strain on the American and UK forces while Canadiens are useless.   Its simply that Afghanistan doesn't need any more forces to do less combat intensive roles, they need people to engage in combat to take out the Taliban.  

If I were a soldier, I think "blue helmet" missions would be the absolute worst. Sometimes they aren't even allowed to shoot back because it could disrupt peace. Your working with soldiers from all different countries (look at that one guy who got shot in some counry and their Jordan "allies" in the mission just took pictures and did nothing to help). Or look at the completely pointless death of the Canadian major in Lebanon. At least if Canadians go in together, they can defend themselves and each other.  

The Afghanistan mission is led by NATO and backed by the UN. Its not really US foreign policy anymore. And the US isn't completely evil. They make mistakes (Iraq) but also do some good things (which I feel Afghanistan is)

The Afghan mission is necessary now and I do agree. It's necessary because the US funded and trained Ben Laden along with the Taliban’s to fight Russian ideology. And that’s where I disagree, the USA have created a few monsters in a few places to serve their needs and now it’s all coming back to bite them in the…. Let them do their own cleanup and let’s be an upstanding country. To say this is a Nato mission is wrong, the Canadians soldiers are there with the Brits and the rest of Nato is looking in from miles away, not lending much support and certainly not helping. In fact it might be threatening Nato itself if this keeps going on.

You can't just look at what's going on today and say we need to do something; you also have to look at what caused it. And in this case I have to say the USA played a big role.

Contrary to you I think Blue Helmet duty, rebuilding, stabilizing and giving back a country to its citizens would be the most rewarding situation.

My 2 cents and your opinion is just as good as mine, these kind of threads can go south in a hurry so don’t take any of this personally.

Bruno

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...