Okay, he did it quietly, but he was awesome because he finally got his wings. He is no Obama, thank goodness, but he outshines any world leader because he actually understands the economy and can talk to us on a level we can all understand. He does not talk down to us, he explains, without bi-partisanship, what is happening not just in Canada, but globally.
It bothers me that other nations look up the PM Harper, yet our own media is so biased against him that all they do is spew venom DAILY. Maybe they should consider that fact, look at their declining readership and advertising dollars and understand that maybe, just maybe, they might be losing readership because they have an agenda that close to 40% of Canadians are not buying into. HA! Not going to happen until they start losing their jobs too.
I was very proud of PM Harper when Obama visited, he more than held his own, he excelled. He continues to excel now, as the video clearly shows every thinking Canadian.
My sixth sense is tingling, the opposition made a big play with their coalition and they were shot down. They continue to be marginalized and stunts like photos on bill boards shows how desperate they have become.
21 comments:
Check out this CNBC interview did today...wow
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1043703424
h/t (Springer) sortofpolitical.com/
My spidey senses tell me that when there are no polls Obama + 5days, PMSH is back in the game, big time.
This interview on CNBC was even better.
Iggy couldn't even begin to come close to this.
Good one...thanks for the video... rock on hunter !
Re: "He does not talk down to us, he explains, without bi-partisanship, what is happening not just in Canada, but globally."
First of all there is no need for the hyphen between bi and partisanship, it is a fully integrated compound word all on it's own. But what does it mean? Bipartisanship? What does it mean - Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties? That sounds right. Now let's put it in the context of what you wrote. what does it mean to explain something WITHOUT bipartisanship? Does it mean to explain something as a Canadian politician - Is PMSH automatically WITHOUT bipartisanship since Canadian politics is comprised of more than two parties? And how do you work that into the last bit of your claim - that PMSH "explains, without bi-partisanship, what is happening not just in Canada, but globally." What do you mean?
As for the issue of whether or not PMSH talks down to us or not,let's look at what he actually said to the nice republican reporter:
"We should be able to do that and emerge back in the surplus in about four years' time so we haven't got a structural deficit problem which which isn't a pretty good. Financial even running a budget certainly been -- budget surplus for over a decade for over a decade. And we're in a position to return to surpluses and as the recession is over -- obviously.
There's a portion of it, painfully verbotem.
No. He. Doesn't. Talk. Down. To. Us. The. Man. Can. Barely. Obviously. Construct. A. Sentence.
If close to 40% of voting Canadians buy into what PMSH is, um saying without bipartisanship, (as you put it), I hate to tell, you this, but it's embarrassing. Why? Because evidently no down talking is even required.
Remember I sent you those links on essay writing from Harvard and such. I was wondering if you looked at them - your concluding paragraph
isn't helping your thesis, much.
I'm shocked that SQ has not weighed-in with some smart crack intended to get back at Hunter for rejecting him. Poor fellow must be under the weather.
SQ aside, our PM is a very impressive representative of our country. He sure doesn't come across as all smarmy like Ignatieff or petulant like Dion.
Hunter, good work on the vid. It was late last night and I only watched the first minute or so. Didn't realize how much ground you covered. Nice compilation!
Harper's definitely the man of the hour.
Funny, how he said the $125 billion bailout he gave our banks wasn't a bailout it was a "market transaction" and how the actual number of dollars just never came up.
And I'm sorry but after his bloated budget SH's free market street cred just isn't there any more.
I too find it funny that no polls have materialized. No one will believe that they haven't been done. They must not be good for the Libs.
After watching the video I closed my eyes and tried to imagine how Iggy would have answered those tough questions and the picture wasn't pretty. It was all lofty, colourful talk with every sentence starting with 'I'.
Cheers.
If the ndp finally get their way, the budget will not be implemented till 2020, and they will continue to cry the money is not flowing.
Then we have the Don Martin column stating that the burocracy will delay, harass, and use whatever trick they can to see the money doesn't get moving. Payback for setting wage controls and cut backs on other expenses, etc.
Remember Dingwall, I am entitled to my entitlements.
PMSH has to start replacing a lot of positions, starting with head honchs at cbc, then the talking heads.
mystereeoso said... "First of all there is no need for the hyphen between bi and partisanship ..."
Since you are attempting to lecture the blog owner on proper usage, allow me to point out that:
1. "... partisanship, it is a fully integrated compound word"
That is incorrect. A compound word is one made up of two words joined together to form a new one, e.g. butterfly.
"Bi" is not a word; it is a prefix.
Furthermore, "fully integrated compound" is a redundant expression.
2. The phrase "all on it's own" contains a very elementary mistake. "it's" is a contraction of "it is." What is called for here is the possessive adjective "its" without an apostrophe.
3. "What does it mean - "
A question should end with a question mark.
4. "what you wrote. what does it mean ..."
The second "what" should be capitalized because it begins a new sentence.
5. "There's a portion of it, painfully verbotem."
"verbotem" is spelled "verbatim"
It is also customary to begin and end the quoted words of a person with quotation marks.
6. "to the nice republican reporter"
Republican should be capitalized, as you're implying the reporter is affiliated with the Republican Party. Using the word in lower case means the reporter is "a person who favors a republican form of government."
7. This sentence shows you need to brush up on the use of punctuation. You're sprinkling commas like Tinkerbell sprinkles fairy dust.
"If close to 40% of voting Canadians buy into what PMSH is, um saying without bipartisanship, (as you put it), I hate to tell, you this, but it's embarrassing."
7. "from Harvard and such"
Is "such" one of the departments or faculties at Harvard?
And finally, if your moniker is meant to sound exotic by making it sound Spanish, the proper spelling is "misterioso." However, you can be forgiven for that flight of fancy - your attempt to be creative. After all, you’ve done so in your entire comment.
You. Are. Welcome.
Gabby, that's hilarious!
Maybe you got my drift despite my atrocious comment grammar:
Bipartisan is one word. Last time I checked, there was no hyphen. Bipartisanship is a fully integrated compound word. It might be redundant to say that. Or it might be just the way it is.
My question stands unanswered.
What does it mean - of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties? That sounds right. Now let's put it in the context of what you wrote. What does it mean to explain something WITHOUT bipartisanship? Does it mean to explain something as a Canadian politician - Is PMSH automatically WITHOUT bipartisanship since Canadian politics is comprised of more than two parties? And how do you work that into the last bit of your claim - that PMSH "explains, without bi-partisanship, what is happening not just in Canada, but globally." What do you mean?
As regards my comment about the style sheets from Harvard - I also sent Hunter a link to a more generalized compilation, hence the phrase, 'as such'.
Again maybe you caught my drift:
Hunter's essay begins with platitudes for the PMSH and somehow devolves by the end into a rant against the opposition. The beginning of the essay could be strengthened by support at the conclusion. I notice you did something like that too in your extensive critique of my comment when, at the end, instead of addressing the substance of my remarks you concluded with a lecture on the spelling of mystereeoso.
Hello, Hunter. I'm glad my "comment" caused you to chuckle.
Your post was right on the money. Some of the pundits have said that in contrast to President Obama, PM Harper has been oddly absent from the scene ever since his government brought down the budget. They contend that the PM doesn't really believe in the budget, so he's not out there selling it.
What those very same pundits neglect to tell the Canadian public is that the PM has been busy giving interviews to many media outlets.
Anyway, when the MSM covers the PM's visits
abroad, they usually manage to misinterpret whatever he says. It's great that he went out there himself to send his message to Americans on protectionism and how it would adversely affect the global economy.
Mystereeoso, I believe you've missed the point of my Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:45:00 PM comment.
You again insist that "bipartisan" is a compound word. It is not, whether you want to believe it or not.
I decided to challenge you on it simply because of the derisive tone of your comment towards Hunter.
Anyone is entitled to express agreement or disagreement with Hunter and any other blogger or commenter.
However, when a commenter pompously purports to correct a blog owner's mistake and then goes on to make plenty of his own ... well, it is difficult to resist the temptation to react.
BTW, what Hunter and other bloggers write are not "essays," strictly speaking. They are blog posts.
Gabby,
I appreciate that you find my comments derisive and pompous. However, if Hunter's blog posts are beyond criticism because they are blog posts and not essays perhaps you could cut the comment section some slack and realize people are responding in vernacular as well.
I have already accepted your criticism and even thanked you for it. But neither you nor Hunter have taken the time to address my question about being without bipartisanship. I guess you must be stumped on it, preferring to rail on about the evil MSM and content to ignore the idiocy of the PM's remarks on FOX because they were not enclosed in quotation marks.
That's cool.
Allow me to refer you to Wikipedia on the subject of compound words.
Oh dear my apologies. I was distracted there for a minute and I published my comment before I was finished. At wikipedia you can find out all about compound words. And I just wanted to point out, I know you like close reading so I urge you to read what I actually wrote.
Mystereeoso, too bad you can't leave well enough alone.
From the Wiki article you referenced:
"... compound, compounding or word-compounding occurs when a person attaches two or more words together to make them work as one word. ...
Colloquial or everyday examples of [sic] are fireman and hardware."
See? Even Wiki makes mistakes. It left out "compound words" in the previous sentence.
Now, to get back to bipartisanship.
Is bi a word when it stands alone? No.
Look at the examples given in the Wiki article.
• fire
• man
• hard
• ware
All of the above, when standing alone, are words conveying a specific meaning.
Bi standing alone is NOT a word with a specific meaning. Only when joined to a word, i.e. used as a prefix http://www.yourdictionary.com/bi-prefix
does it acquire its meaning: forms of two, as in bilingual, bicarbonate, bipartisan, etc.
Therefore, bipartisanship is NOT a compound word.
As I mentioned in my Wednesday, February 25, 11:31:00 AM comment, my intervention in the exchange between you and Hunter came about because of the derisive tone you used towards her.
My comment had very little, if anything, to do with the substance of your comment.
My comment was directed at your obvious mistakes; I would not have commented on them if you hadn't attempted to correct Hunter's use of bipartisanship.
Instead of taking the corrections I made so personally, please take them as a life lesson: before getting hung up on one word (in this case Hunter's use of bipartisanship) please be sure you yourself are sure of your facts. OK?
Enjoy your weekend.
Ship is a word when it stands alone and I believe the word in question is bipartisanship.
Congratulations on that clever comeback ... but no cigar.
• In your initial response to Hunter - “ First of all there is no need for the hyphen between bi and partisanship, it is a fully integrated compound word all on it's own” - you focused on the bi- part of the word bipartisanship, not on the word ending -ship; bi- has been the focus of our discussion.
• Apparently, you don’t understand the difference between a compound word [fire + man = fireman] and a word to which a prefix and/or a suffix has been added to modify its basic meaning [bi- + partisan + -ship = partisanship].
Maybe this would help you:
http://tinyurl.com/am5lua
• The ship you referenced is not this ship: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ship
Rather, it is this -ship: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ship
• Finally, may I leave you with some wise words? Don't worry, they are not mine.
«It is not the ship so much as the skillful sailing that assures the prosperous voyage.»
George William Curtis
And that, my friend, is my last word on this. Happy sailing!
========
Note to Hunter: I have a very hard time when I try to post a comment here, a problem I have not encountered elsewhere.
I am told again and again that my password is incorrect. I then have to reset my password on my Google account, and even though it's the very same password as before, I can login in and post only after going through the resetting procedure.
Earlier this afternoon, when I clicked on your bookmarked page, I got here, but all your posts were gone.
I'm not tech-savvy enough to know what's going on. Do you have any suggestions or explanations?
Gabby, I also used to have problems posting and getting the message re password. I finally discovered the problem. I was using the wrong user name, I typed in Mary T instead of e mail address. Stupid. The next time I got the message I checked my user name and had typed in an extra letter or hit # instead of @. or used an extra space.
Shock, now watching ctv and Sandy R said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and mentioned his interview on cnn today.
Should mention I looked at Mary T as user name and nothing clicked in my mind.
Merriam Websters on bipartisanship:
"of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"
Hunter boldly stated at the beginning of her post that PMSH "does not talk down to us, he explains, without bi-partisanship, what is happening not just in Canada, but globally".
Now, is it according to the dictionary that PMSH is without bipartisanship in his explanations as Canadian politics has MORE than two parties? Or are his explanations without bipartisanship
as they are NOT "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise" with other parties?
If the answer is that he is without bipartisanship because Canadian politics involves more than two parties - I'm curious about how that is laudatory. How does that differentiate the PM from any other Canadian MP?
If the answer is that the PM lacks the spirit of cooperation, agreement and compromise in dealing with ideology that differs from his own - I'm REALLY curious about how that is laudatory.
Post a Comment