It would seem that a good deal of Canada did not agree with you upon that last point in the previous election.

I don't see why the CPC government would even fathom any shift in their governing status because someone working on a campaign in some corner of the country decided to do something stupid and illegal. That person, and anyone else implicated should most certainly be held to full account - but when you look to paint entire swaths of Canadians with guilt for the actions of others it's only your own sense of justice you're distorting.

For what it's worth, I believe the penalty for electoral fraud is actually quite stiff - and I hope the people involved in this debacle get no leniency.

No trolling intended. And no, I can't say that's how people often end their conversations with me... Though I suspect that were I having this conversation in person, the respondent to the OPs post likely wouldn't be spewing out the insults quite so liberally - funny how that works, actual facetime being a pre-req for civility in this day and age.

And to tell you the truth, I fully expect that he will take a position somewhere outside Canada in the near future - I likely would, given his credentials. I don't see anything wrong with that. I find it interesting that others do, certainly. Even more interesting is that people who would defend him would consider such an 'accusation' a 'smear' in the first place. Seems a bit of an inherent admission to it being something disagreeable, doesn't it?

Besides that, if anyone wanted to highlight a misstatement of fact in the OP's post, they could have easily pointed out that it was not the NDP who were behind the 'vikileaks' account, it was a Liberal staffer. That was much more blatant than the ambiguous statement about 'here again, back to america tomorrow antics'.

Indeed, you are correct, he has not returned to the United States. Though that event could certainly still happen in the future - and at that point the implication would be true.

The OP's comments could also be viewed more broadly to refer to time Ignatieff spent outside of Canada prior to his election bid, and I would most certainly say that his lengthy (and impressive) CV did not appear to do him or his party any favours with the Canadian electorate in the last election... much like the OP pointed out.

Either way, I personally didn't read the OP's comment as a statement of fact - it's quite well known in Canada that Ignatieff accepted a job at UofT, and so the anger laden tirade that followed it seemed to warrant comment.

If you're calling someone a liar who has not in fact lied, then that would in turn make you the liar. I would have thought that was pretty easily understood, but I'll try and spell things out for you a bit better from here on in.

'adjective confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others' - I think that describes both your original comment and your response to a T.

It means that politicians are often self righteous as well, and many of them would probably be just as confused as yourself if anyone ever pointed it out to them. Coincidentally, I've read through a few of your posts, and I suspect it probably wouldn't be a stretch to find a few people who would call you a lying egotist - I'm not sure about the power seeking portion though, I really didn't want to read your drivel any further than I had to.

I think people like yourself should actually be forced to be involved in politics, much like required military service in other countries. Not so that you can see what politicians are really like - but so that you can see what people like YOU are like.

p.s., I like your new signature - you should keep it.

Many elected representatives vote in a way that represents their constituents more-so than one that represents their party, or their own personal views. For a recent example of this in Canadian politics, you can see the NDP members who voted to eliminate the long gun registry - against the wishes of their own party, and most definitely WITH the consent of a good number of their own constituents. This is just a convenient example, but I'm sure you could find others from all political parties.

WTF? Reason on slashdot? Armageddon cannot be far behind...

And if he were to accept a position in the U.S. tomorrow, would that then make you the fucking liar? Or is it just convenient to your argument to fling self righteous remarks about? Seems you and politicians may have more in common than you think.

Who would you vote for given the only choices you have are politicians? Can you show me any party from which no representative has ever faced criminal charges?

Indeed... eliminating mandatory long form census, disposing of the long gun registry, clearly these are just ploys to spy on people further, and pull more dirty tricks! Next thing you know they'll lower taxes! Or allow farmers to actually choose whom they sell the fruits of their labor to! Stop this madness!

You know, there's a little option right beside the search box to turn 'google instant' off. You can also turn it off in settings. And, it also appears to default to off if you're not signed in.

...just sayin!

Trust me, you don't really want Fox viewers to become self aware... haven't you seen the Terminator series?!?

I was almost willing to donate up until the last part, you sandbagging son of a bitch!

Seriously though, where do I sign up for your newsletter??