Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Stats By Hunter, Not The MSM

So a new poll is out, haven't really seen it in the MSM, but have been busy so I might have missed the coverage.



Okay, so we have a tie, but look at two numbers, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. The Liberals are usually around 40% in both areas. This table clearly shows that the Conservatives are ahead in both areas. Most shocking is Atlantic Canada, with the Conservatives at 33% and Liberals at 25%, this rarely happens. It is usually 40% or more for the Liberals. Look at the Quebec breakdown, yikes! The Liberals have gone from first place to only 29%.



Iggy only comes out ahead in Quebec, all other regions, even Atlantic Canada are supporting PM Harper.



Conservatives win this 67% to 53%. Very positive for the government, but you won't hear that in the MSM.



This question is so biased they should be ashamed of themselves. First of all, they make sure they put Conservative in front of government for every option, why not just government? Secondly, only one option is positive for the government. Why not a simple question...The government has done a good job. Yes or no. That would not have gotten the result their client wanted.



PM Harper wins most categories, but Iggy has a 6% drop in the "inspires confidence" category. Most impressive is PM Harper's huge lead in "a strong and decisive leader" PM Harper 43%, Iggy 28%, I wonder how that will translate into votes.

Now, it's only a picture in time, but it looks good for PM Harper, the Iggy bump is disappearing the more often he opens his mouth and talks. No policy, all negative, doesn't seem to be working, even in a recession where the Liberals should be way ahead.

70 comments:

Southern Quebec said...

"This question is so biased they should be ashamed of themselves. First of all, they make sure they put Conservative in front of government for every option, why not just government?"

*sigh*
What's your degree in Hunter?

maryT said...

EofE, I will answer your question here, I know you will be by.
The wife of the gov of S.C., yesterday when he did his rambling news conference on where he had been for a week. Argentina, not hiking.

Alberta Girl said...

Hey SQ - funny how when it is swinging back the other way, suddenly you agree with us that the way they ask the questions, dictates the poll results?

Or - just maybe Iggy is not as popular as you guys were hoping.

East of Eden said...

Thanks MaryT. I didn't read about that one. What an idiot - sheesh. It's about time these spouses started to stand up for themselves. I remember Hillary sticking with Bill in light of his philandering - I don't know how she tolerated it. But, it's her life and she can manage it as she wishes.

It strikes me as odd that we have never, to my recollection, had a Canadian politician who was caught in an affair. Either the MSM is practicing some sort of discretion or our politicians don't fool around on their spouses. It may have happened but I don't recall any such scandals here at home.

East of Eden said...

I fail to see what a degree has to do with anything unless the inference is that a woman without a degree is somehow marginal and should not have an opinion or is incapable of logic or intelligence.

maryT said...

NNW has the story re the poll. I think it just might turn out that an election would give the PM his majority, as people are sick and tired of the 3 yrs of threats that the liberals will take their ball and go home. No one has yet said where the liberals will take an additional 77 seats to get 154 for a slim majority, or the 66 seats to get a minority equal to our 143. Anything less would be a big failure to Iggy's ego. I think the strike in Toronto could hurt the fed liberals.
We know what a liberal majority does, and we do not need daycare or kyoto.

mystereeoso said...

East, just the other day you made the point that bottom line - the conservatives are in power. So how is it biased, as Huntsy is asserting to ask in a poll questions about the conservative government? I "inferred" from SQ's question that Huntsy's assertion seems so silly it got SQ to wondering what Huntsy took in school.Were you inferring that Huntsy didn't finish school? Either way, I'm not sure schooling could do much to help such obvious partisan silliness.

mystereeoso said...

Huntsy, never mind the MSM - did you look at the key findings of the report itself? Hint - they are right there on the right at the top of the page.


Harper has lost more momentum than any of he other leaders. And 40% of those polled think the conserves have done a poor job and a new party should be elected to power.

mystereeoso said...

If you look down the page a bit further they find only one in four would unreservedly re-elect the conserves. Turn that on its head and you get something like three out of every four are critical of or have reservations about the way the conserves run the country.

East of Eden said...

Stereo - you made me think of something with your comment re: partisanship. I often wonder why opposing commenters don't include their own party when making comments about partisanship. I am sure you are aware of partisanship on blogs of all political stripes.

If you've ever seen my occasional comments on Lib blogs, you'll notice that if I bring up an issue that crosses party lines, I'll make reference to that fact. When I'm in my own environment (Conservative blogs), I can be more partisan. When I visit Lib or NDP blogs, I will be less partisan and a lot more diplomatic.

I consider myself to be a guest in possibly hostile territory when I visit a non-Conservative blog and adjust my commenting accordingly. Believe it or not, with the exception of one Lib blog, I've always been treated with respect even though the majority of commenters disagree with me.

Disagreement is fine, as long as it is done respectfully and with an open mind.

You saw the other day that I said "hello" to Zorph. We have completely opposing viewpoints but we did once have a very rational and respectful discussion and we both made it known that it happened. Just goes to prove what an open mind and a respectful dialogue can do to build bridges.

mystereeoso said...

I wasn't referring to your behaviour on political blogs, East. I was referring to Huntsy's silly partisan complaint about what she perceives as a biased poll question.

Platty said...

And 40% of those polled think the conserves have done a poor job and a new party should be elected to power.

Which would mean that 60% think the Conservatives have done a good job and that they should be named the new natural governing party....



--

mystereeoso said...

Actually, no. From he analysis:

"Two-in-five Canadians (40%) believe the Conservative government has done a poor job, and that a new party should be elected into power, while five per cent criticize the Tories, but believe they should still be re-elected. In addition, 11 per cent of respondents commend the Tories but call for a change in Ottawa, while one-in-four (26%) unreservedly believe that the Tories should be re-elected."

Alberta Girl said...

So to extrapolate SQ's theory - IF the question was favorable to the Tories, why the 40% that say they should be voted out when 35% say they should be re-elected.

What was the question there.

Maybe.....

If you believe the Tories have done a poor job with the economy, do you think electing a new party would solve the problem?

Gee SQ - see how a question can dictate an answer.

The whole poll is a serious of contradictions. Which is why I don't take too much stock in polls.

Southern Quebec said...

Why do I ask about Hunters degree? Well, if it is in PoliSci or Statistics, she would understand how "proper" polls were run. If her degree is in, say, BasketWeaving there is no reason for her to understand stuff at this level. With her contemptuous attitude towards "elite book larnin' intellectuals" I am leaning towards the basketweaving major...but that's just me...

MaryT STAY ON TOPIC!!!

mystereeoso said...

Well, ABG, if the question was favourable to the conserves (please stop calling them tories, those shoes don't fit),
how would it be any less biased?

Again from the analysis:

"While the election was averted, the stalemate between the two main parties persists. The negative momentum score for all five leaders suggests that nobody connected with the public during the standoff.
For the governing Tories, the economy remains a good file. The prime minister is clearly ahead of his opponents as an economic manager, and Canadians do not automatically assume they would be better off under a Liberal administration at this point. However, the party has lost its stranglehold on British Columbia and Harper keeps the worst momentum score of all leaders. Also, the level of strong support for the Conservatives (26%) is clearly lower than the percentage who express disappointment and call for change (40%).
For the opposition Grits, the situation is also murky. While support in BC is reaching one of the highest points in years, the party has dropped back in Quebec and Ontario. Ignatieff remains unable to wrestle the economic manager mantle from Harper, and continues to trail on this question."

mystereeoso said...

Compare to Hntsy's analysis:

"PM Harper wins most categories, but Iggy has a 6% drop in the "inspires confidence" category."

mystereeoso said...

That's why SQ thinks you might've taken basket weaving.

mystereeoso said...

I'll give you this though Huntsy, you ask a good question.

"I wonder how that will translate into votes."

That was very astute.

Alberta Girl said...

"(please stop calling them tories, those shoes don't fit),"

What are you talking about mysty??? Of course they are Tories. That statement really says alot about you and your level of intelligence.

"Also, the level of strong support for the Conservatives (26%) is clearly lower than the percentage who express disappointment and call for change (40%)."

That statement is important for what it doesn't say, mysty.

For example, The strong support is 26% - while 40% express disappointment - so what it doesn't say is that - obviously - 34% believe they are doing an adequate job and the government should stay in power -

Here is some simple math, mysty

26 + 34 = 60% feel the Tories have been doing a good job and should stay in power.


Spin at its finest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA

mystereeoso said...

Dear ABG,

Your guys aren't Tories by any stretch of the imagination. Sorry. Maybe a handful are left in the party. But it is a misnomer to call the lot of them Tories.

No need to insult my intelligence but thanks all the same.

Regarding your numbers: 40% express disappointment AND WANT A NEW PARTY ELECTED. 11% want some kind of change in Ottawa. 5% are critical of the conserves but don't want to rock the boat.26% like the conserves without reservation. That leaves 18% out there in undecided land.

Not quite the same spin.

Bec said...

"In addition, 11 per cent of respondents commend the Tories but call for a change in Ottawa"

There is nothing specific about the wishes of these 11%. It could mean that they wish for a majority Conservative govt as they have "commended" them. With the 5% that still feel the Conservative should be elected despite criticism plus the die hard, true blue, 26% that could easily add up to a Conservative MAJORITY!

Platty, is correct.

mystereeoso said...

It means those people like to keep things status quo. On the other hand since it's all up for interpretation, it may turn out that as much as they like the status quo, they hate to be lied to and its is only a matter of time before the lies overtake their comfort zone.

mystereeoso said...

It also means that the cons will have to placate or woo a large number of adamantly not interested voters and grab the interest of half as many undecideds.

mystereeoso said...

Was PMSH hoping to woo those voters with his expensive untendered Fox News
press junkets? That 5 million dollar Iggy ad campaign? Bringing the supply of medical isotopes to an abrupt halt? Or maybe he thought that price tag on Afghanistan would suffice...

liberal supporter said...

So the old adage should be updated?

"There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there's Hunter!"

Thanks for posting these, Hunter. Looks like everyone has to do more, in the mean time Canadians appear to want minority government to work.

East of Eden said...

SQ - I have a BA with a double major in psychology and sociology and a minor in economics. I also have a Business Administration degree. I don't have a poli sci degree but...I am a Canadian who is able to make his own decisions and form his own opinions. Having an education makes no difference when it comes to intelligence or ability to make rational decisions and form intelligent opinions.

I have never taken Hunter's dialogue to indicate any disdain for those of us who were fortunate enough to obtain an education.

Stereo - you always, somehow, mesh some of your thinking with mine. In your reply to AG, you gave a breakdown of the poll results - good on you for that. You, whether you realize it or not, supported one of the reasons that the coalition showed its dishonest hand. According to the coalition members and their supporters, 60% of Canadians voted against Harper. I always disputed that because it is completely wrong.

So, your comment got me thinking of how easily it is to present numbers in one light or another and how gullible the public can be.

In the case of the coalition, 60% of VOTERS chose a party other than the CPC. That did not mean that they all voted AGAINST Harper...but, rather, it means that they voted for their own preferred party - NDP, Green, Rhino, Lib...what have you.

As for the 60% representing Canadians - not at all true. Not all Canadians are eligible to vote. Of those who were eligible, only around 50% actually got off their butts and voted. Of that 50% or so, 40% voted for the CPC and the COMBINED total of all other votes went to parties (plural) other than the CPC.

So, you are entirely correct that figures can be bandied about and shown in one light or the other.

I find it rather ironic that many times, I can actually be reminded of something by your comments.

East of Eden said...

"Canadians appear to want minority government to work."

You could be correct. We'll never know, however, because Ignatieff just can't stop grandstanding. His grandstanding is preventing Canadians from receiving the governance for which we voted.

It's really a shame that an American came to our country to disrupt it.

mystereeoso said...

Re:"I have never taken Hunter's dialogue to indicate any disdain for those of us who were fortunate enough to obtain an education."

Aside from the fact that Hunsty routinely brushes aside most expert opinion that disagrees with conservative policy.....need links? They're in the sidebar. Why just yesterday Huntsy made rather disparaging remarks about arts courses at UofA:

" As far as Gayle stating that they are more intelligent because of the university, obviously she has never attended the UofA, or if she did, she took some useless arts course, that did not lead to gainful employment, because she is here all day posting while we are at work"

I guess it never occurred to Huntsy that Gayle may work at night. That aside, When 7% of a country's GDP is attributable to the arts, it's always pretty hilarious for ignorant people to call arts education useless.

liberal supporter said...

His grandstanding is preventing Canadians from receiving the governance for which we voted.
Which grandstanding? I was thinking of last week's agreement to keep going until the fall, as indicating we all want minority government to work.

It's really a shame that an American came to our country to disrupt it.
Well disruption is in the eye of the beholder, but "American" is something that is a fact or not. Can you elaborate? I can only find on his Wiki page that he is a Canadian. He did vote in British elections, though he can as a citizen of a Commonwealth country. And I believe British citizenship, like Canadian does not require renouncing all others.

Unlike the Dion wiki page, which goes into detail about the French citizenship received from his mother (Dion did not live in France and take out citizenship on his own), the Iggy wiki page makes no mention other than he is a Canadian. The word "citizenship" only finds hits about some book or article Iggy wrote on the topic of citizenship in general.

So did Ignatieff take out US citizenship? He lived there 6 years, so would have had enough time. I am doubtful he would have though, people who have lived in different countries tend to stick with the citizenship of birth. I doubt he was planning to spend the rest of his days in the US.

East of Eden said...

Stereo - brushing aside an opinion is not disdain for the education but rather dismissal of the opinion. We all do that.

Just because somebody is a so-called expert does not make his or her opinion viable. Opinions can be accepted or rejected.

Considering that expert opinions seem to come in both pro and con varieties, I would surmise that I have a choice of which one to accept.

Take global warming - there are varying expert opinions so I figure that I can choose the one which says that this is a natural occurence and it is not as severe as some experts say and, therefore, I can conclude that any scheme which involves a tax is nothing but a tax grab and has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with removing yet more cash from my pocket.

mystereeoso said...

Re:"Take global warming - there are varying expert opinions so I figure that I can choose the one which says that this is a natural occurence and it is not as severe as some experts say and, therefore, I can conclude that any scheme which involves a tax is nothing but a tax grab and has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with removing yet more cash from my pocket."

Or you could think critically.

East of Eden said...

Stereo - let me assure you that I think very critically and I analyze most things every which way from Sunday. Unlike some people who comment on Conservative blogs (not referring to you), I use my life experience, education both in and out of the classroom, my own intuitive and analytical abilities...all to come up with what I feel is an informed and well-rounded opinion.

Many times, I will change my opinion if another person comes up with something which I find more logical than mine or I will incorporate opposing views into my view.

It's all about keeping an open mind. Those who exist on Conservative blogs simply to argue, put down, or issue sock puppet speaking points are totally irrelevant and deserve nothing in terms of credence or respect.

See, Stereo - you and I are actually having a virtual conversation free of vitriol, mockery, or personal attacks - even though, I can assure you, we are completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.

mystereeoso said...

Well, I'll look forward to hearing your open minded opinions in the future. However, that does not address my earlier remark. You say "brushing aside an opinion is not disdain for the education but rather dismissal of the opinion." In so far as (to stay with your example of global warming) the varying opinions are all derived from scientists, educated as scientists and practicing science - brushing aside these opinions DOES represent a disdain for education.

mystereeoso said...

On the other hand if you'd rather the gardener not mention the pansies don't grow under the walnut tree, by all means go ahead and plant 'em all the same. No skin off my nose.

East of Eden said...

Stereo, I have to disagree. To preface: when I took my four levels of statistics courses, one lesson was drummed into our heads. No matter how extensive the testing, one could never prove something to be true but, rather, one could only show something to be probably true. On the other hand, one can show something to be false.

Scientists are educated, yes, I agree. However, if we have two equally educated scientists and one says that our carbon content is speeding up global warming and the other scientist says that we are experiencing a slight global warming due to natural cycles and not due to carbon content, how can I possibly believe both of them?

They are both educated and experienced but they have opposing opinions. By rejecting one and accepting the other is not dismissal of their qualifications but, rather the dismissal of one opinion.

How is it that we can have many experts whose opinions do not line up? We have to choose the one with which we are most comfortable.

See what I mean? Here's an example which hits close to home. When my arthritis first reared its ugly head, I went to our city's foremost specialist who told me he could do nothing for me and that I should look forward to life in a wheelchair. I did not accept his opinion and my family physician sent me to another specialist who showed me what we could do to relieve the pain so I could live a normal life. Two educated doctors with two different opinions. I dismissed the first one and accepted the second one. The first doc is actually more experienced and educated but he made an error in his opinion.

mystereeoso said...

Re: "How is it that we can have many experts whose opinions do not line up?"

That is the nature of science.

Re:" We have to choose the one with which we are most comfortable."

Or we can remain skeptical and critical.

mystereeoso said...

Which is not the same as automatically assuming tax grab when people talk about global warming.

East of Eden said...

Oh, Stereo - I am skeptical, that's for sure. As for the tax grab - that whole green shift thing really turned me off. Any time a politician promotes a "revenue neutral" tax, my skepticism rears up big time.

First question I ask: why install a new tax scheme if it's neutral? Why not just redirect the revenue? Therefore, I start to do some analysis and digging. The green shift, for example - I asked an actuary whom I know to figure out how neutral it would be for me and it turned out to be significantly revenue negative at my expense.

The neutrality of the green shift was the big picture - yes, the plan would tax in x dollars and then spend x dollars but...only 60% would be returned to the actual average taxpayer.

One Lib candidate referred to the tax cut as "massive". Well, I don't consider a couple of hundred over a year to be massive especially in light of how much my cost of living would increase.

So, yes, I see it as a tax grab. There are many ways to encourage conservation and I practice them in my daily life. So, how am I rewarded for my conservation? Well, our premier is introducing TOD electricity billing. Sorry, but considering that my home is pretty much a natural gas home, I really can't make any significant adjustments and yet I will be penalized.

My conservation measures are not altogether altruistic. By conserving, I am saving money. One example - I don't use plastic bags or containers for storage. I use mason jars which I have had for almost 30 years. Glass is not made from petroleum and they last forever unless you break one. Another example - I still have flannel diapers which I use as rags at home - they are 40 years old and they are still good - thus, no paper towels needed for cleaning.

So, a green tax? No, education is better. Governments of all stripes waste money. I think most of us can agree that if you want to make something complex and expensive, give it to the government to do.

Why do I distrust the Liberals, especially where taxes are concerned? Well, McGuinty promised no tax increases and then slapped on a health tax. Where does that revenue go? General revenue, not health care.

The green shift? It would have taxed natural gas and yet Dion tried to market the tax as a tax on things we don't need. I hate to break it to him but most of Canada endures a cold winter and we need to heat our homes. We also need hot water to wash ourselves. So, that marketing line was a blatant lie, as far as I am concerned.

Now, as to science being inexact - yes, you hit the nail on the head. So, as a free citizen of this country, if I see opposing opinions, I will choose the one which I believe to be more viable - after I consider the two views and do a little digging, myself.

As for global warming - I believe it is a natural cycle. I also believe that our country is not a big offender in terms of pollution. If you want to talk pollution, talk Asia. Unfortunately, most of the goods in our stores come from Asia. Therefore, we Canadians should not be penalized with more taxation because some expert's view is taken to be gospel.

wilson said...

Iffy gambled that the recession would defeat PMSH.

So he did nothing, added nothing to the budget/stimulus,
stood back with his arms folded "Harper wears this recession'.
Now the polls are showing what Iffy earned....nothing.

NO federal Conservative government has EVER been re-elected following a recession.

''...My back-of-the-napkin accounting of past history shows that in the federal election immediately following a significant recession or depression since Confederation, the government was defeated nine out of twelve times...

It's interesting to note that if Harper were to defy the odds, he would be the first Conservative Prime Minister to successfully retain power through a recession....''

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/recessions-and-elections-in-canada-and-ontario/article975696/

mystereeoso said...

We're off topic. Put it all in the subjective. Your forty percent is my sixty. Huntsy is welcome to her statistical opinion. I and SQ are welcome to brush it aside without fear of seeming disdainful of her educated reasoning. You can reject global warming as gospel if you want. No problem. See how your pansies do.

wilson said...

''40% express disappointment AND WANT A NEW PARTY ELECTED''

Wow! That's even better,
only 40%, when LibDipperBlocGreens comprise 63%....
And just think, some of that 40% want a Dipper government, no doubt.

NO ELECTION until 2012

Alberta Girl said...

"Stereo, I have to disagree. To preface: when I took my four levels of statistics courses, one lesson was drummed into our heads. No matter how extensive the testing, one could never prove something to be true but, rather, one could only show something to be probably true. On the other hand, one can show something to be false."

When I took Statistics - it was drummed into our heads that statistics can be made to say anything depending on the questions asked, the polling done, the population polled, the region polled AND the biggest - who commissioned the poll.

That is why ANY poll should be investigated to see the back story.

mystereeoso said...

No knowledge like applied knowledge I always say.

East of Eden said...

Exactly, Stereo - you can brush aside the opinion which is expressed regardless of the education behind it which may or may not be germane to the opinion.

I have only perenniels in my garden because I no longer have much time to devote to gardening. I have good hardy plants like sedum and hosta in my garden as well as some nice trees and bushes. But no pansies - I'd never have pansies in my garden...or petunias or any delicate plants.

maryT said...

When PMSH was first elected, the libs should have taken their time out as a message. Co-operate, get rid of all the adscam people, in whatever capacity they were, find new and credible candidates, tell Goodale, McCallum etc they were no longer needed or wanted. By 2010 there would have been another election, and we would have much fewer MPs than we now have to go into it with.
Instead, they had a brain fart and decided to cause all kinds of problems, threaten every week with an election etc. They tried to get a co-alition to take over, can't handle being out of power and away from the trough. What did all their antics get, another election, they lost seats, we gained seats. It backfired on them big time. Did they learn, no, still up to their antics, and it will backfire again with their new unelected leader. Who is left for Iggy to insult, the english speaking majority of canadians with his stmt that a true canadian speaks french, Quebec must be in power for Canada to work, canadians of all descriptions when he said, Liberals built Canada. (catch the PM's speech today to put a lie to that stmt) the Ukranians and the Koreans, the NDP/Bloc for abandoning the co-alition. Who is left, except grassroot liberals who object to how he got his job.
And now another adscam group is being sued by the govt for 35 million dollars to recoup stolen money.
This summer should be interesting.

mystereeoso said...

Re: "you can brush aside the opinion which is expressed regardless of the education behind it which may or may not be germane to the opinion."

Like I said, brush it aside all you want, but you still might not be right.

Eskimo said...

Wow! What a great exchange going on here this morning!

Eskimo said...

Off topic, but forecast for Khandahar tomorrow is 45C. Wouldn't hurt to have our forces in your thoughts. 45 degrees, full kit and a stressful mission. God bless them.

East of Eden said...

"Like I said, brush it aside all you want, but you still might not be right."

And I might not be wrong, either.

And as I said - I am quite willing to change my stance if somebody can show me some compelling reason to change.

East of Eden said...

"Wow! What a great exchange going on here this morning!"

You're correct, Eskimo. I said it a while back that Stereo showed signs of rational and respectful commenting and I believe that my opinion has been shown to be probably true.

You'll note that I have not engaged in any exchange with SQ or LS.

mystereeoso said...

I'm just going to bookmark that comment, if you don't mind East.

wilson said...

'...libs should have taken their time out as a message. Co-operate, get rid of all the adscam people, in whatever capacity they were, find new and credible candidates...'

So true Mary,
but then the recession happened.
That's why Iffy refused to let Harper 'steal' any Liberal ideas.

Liberals were so damn sure PMSH would be tossed out due to the recession, they just spun their wheels, waiting for it to happen.

Should PMSH retain power thru a recession,
he will be the first EVER fed Conservative to do so.

I'm betting PMSH once again gets into the Canadian history book of 'firsts'.

Eskimo said...

E of E: I'd prefer to get along as well, but as you know things can get quite 'passionate' here when addressing idealogical issues.

East of Eden said...

Which comment, Stereo? The one which is somewhat complimentary to you?

East of Eden said...

Eskimo - passion is good. I do draw the line at commenters being rude or playing silly buggers. Although I vehementally disagree with much of what Stereo says, we did have a decent discourse today and I hope that we continue so to do.

mystereeoso said...

I'm gonna bookmark the part where you said, " I am quite willing to change my stance if somebody can show me some compelling reason to change." And with respect, not to be contrary but I'm pretty sure what happened here today was that we agreed to disagree. Nothing more. Regarding Hunsty's take on the stats, I think there is an Ekos poll out today that gives the conserves a bit of an up . Maybe you'll all go take a look.

liberal supporter said...

You'll note that I have not engaged in any exchange with SQ or LS.
That is because I asked you to substantiate your claim that Ignatieff is an American. I even phrased it like "I don't know for sure".

Still waiting, of course.

liberal supporter said...

You'll note that I have not engaged in any exchange with SQ or LS.

Except of course when you did:

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:20:00 AM

East of Eden said...

LS - one reply does not make an exchange. Compare that with what transpired between Stereo and myself today. You will notice a difference.

East of Eden said...

Stereo - agreeing to disagree is absolutely acceptable. It happens all the time and is a natural part of life. Two people can disagree and still be respectful.

Here's a personal example: I do not agree with living together common-law and would not do it in my own life. One of my closest friends and his girlfriend have lived together since 1991 and have two teenaged daughters. I disagree with the idea of living common-law and having a family but...it is their life and not mine. It, in no way, affects our friendship.

I am a man of faith and I have close friends who do not believe in God at all. How can we be close friends? Easy - they would never make a crack about religion or God and I never make a crack about their lack of faith. We respect each other's right to lead our own lives as we wish.

Just as I cannot comprehend a life without God, they cannot comprehend a life with God. We discuss faith but we do it with respect.

liberal supporter said...

You said "not any". Giving one thing and receiving one thing is usually considered an exchange. Plus this reply makes two.

Can you answer my question about Ignatieff's citizenship? You claimed he is an American.

mystereeoso said...

Actually, East, what you've done is affirmed interacting with LS and SQ by denying interactions with LS and SQ.

mystereeoso said...

In fairness, SQ's comment sparked the tone and content of the whole thread, the discussion of edumucation etc.

mystereeoso said...

In response to Huntsy - of course.

Southern Quebec said...

Moi, it's all about moi...:)

Gayle said...

In other news, for a pretty objective look at the recent polls, I suggest you go here:

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/

mystereeoso said...

And in still other news - Michael Jackson RIP.

Alberta Girl said...

"In other news, for a pretty objective look at the recent polls, I suggest you go here:"

Very interesting link Gayle

The comments are even more interesting - seems that Iggy is seen as an "empty suit" by more and more and more.

Gayle said...

If that is what you think AG, then you need to get out more.