Damn, Paul Martin knows how to hold a photo-op

Now if Harper would just kiss Chimpy... :rofl:

not sure Clinton will do the trick either...given our emissions are UP 24% inspite of Kyoto, Martin shouldn't be so bold on climate change.

(Clinton? oh the guy that didn't sign Kyoto either...funny how social democrats stumble into environmental issues when it's safe to do so ;-)

being seen with and like by Clinton whom Canadians like and respect very much and see Clinton as the anti-bush message. Having the bush admin behave like 5 year olds throwing a pissy-pants tantrum in public when they found out Clinton was speaking at the conference and taking our Ambassador to task for Martin's 'strong' words (personally, they weren't that strong, imo)about the U.S. will also reflect positively on Martin, imo.

The only ones that will get their noses out of joint will be the faux Cons and that picture is positively delicious, lol.

Fresh from solving Tsunami Relief (failure), just back from making Poverty History (failure -- see Stephen Lewis's comments on that cheap stunt) and now shilling for a Climate Change agreement he didn't sign in the first place...Clinton has lost none of his lustre.

Jeez, he so good, maybe the Americans should elect him President. If they had, then maybe we wouldn't have these problem in 2005, huh? LOL

(At least Trudeau had the good sense to LEAVE politics)

unlike the majority of Canadians. You are, however, incorrect re Clinton signing onto the Kyoto Treaty:

In 1998 the Clinton administration signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing this it committed the United States to a 7 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 emissions levels, to be achieved between the years 2008 and 2012. Three years later in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature, claiming that the treaty was "fatally flawed". Upon rejecting the Kyoto Protocol (often called just "Kyoto"), Bush outlined an alternative plan for U.S. emissions reductions that left other signatory countries scoffing at best. For Kyoto to take effect, it was required that countries responsible for 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions sign on to it. The Bush administration's withdrawal was a great blow to the hope that this percentage would be achieved.



http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm

It does seem that unless he performs miracles instead of just trying to make a difference, he is dirt under your feet...or...could it be that no matter what he did, he would be dirt under your feet? rofl

Clinton didn't want to expend the political capital in Congress to even convince his own Party...rem by 1998, he was a lame duck and the Dems were facing mid-term elections.

I agree with the observations at the time; Clinton's position was insincere and it was a no-win position with the Dems politically, so they left it for the Bushites to kill it. He basically had no mandate, so signing it was meaningless political theatre for the 'Gore' greenies.

Same shit with the international treaties he rejected that would have 'tied American hands' on such vital things as land mines and child soldiers.

He's a phoney...

"kick:

You think that?

It's all about image not substance, Bill Clinton is well loved and respected (despite what MrPrax says) the image of Bill shaking Paul's hand will look like Clinton is endorsing him. I think that will play well to the 20% group of undecideds who don't know whether to vote NDP or Liberal. Harpers response was so lame too "he is one president behind." Martin met with bush too, everybody knows that. Besides, about 75% of Canadians have Caroline Parrish's opinion of bush anyway.

I'm sure I heard Clinton and others say that is what happened.

In 1998 the Clinton administration signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. In doing this it committed the United States to a 7 percent reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 emissions levels, to be achieved between the years 2008 and 2012. Three years later in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. signature, claiming that the treaty was "fatally flawed". Upon rejecting the Kyoto Protocol (often called just "Kyoto"), Bush outlined an alternative plan for U.S. emissions reductions that left other signatory countries scoffing at best. For Kyoto to take effect, it was required that countries responsible for 55% of world greenhouse gas emissions sign on to it. The Bush administration's withdrawal was a great blow to the hope that this percentage would be achieved.

http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm

Yes, the US is there. Even though Bush threatened to scrub the signature. (Which is interesting in itself, since the standard procedure prior to his taking office was for the US to simply sign but not ratify, in order to express some support for the process -- this is the case for various other international agreements. Some speculation that Bush wanted to erase the "old" America from the history books, e.g. by replacing the agreement which Gore helped create by something of his own design.)

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf

...and somewhat popular, um duhr. But intrestingly enough Jim's Liberal cheerleading hit the nail on the head, it is just that: a photo-op. Unless it's a photo-op with Bush, or Paul Martin kicking someone, or shooting a baby, or shooting-up who cares? It's not as if people are going to base their vote on this over a month from now...

There are only two photo-op's I remember from the last election. The one where a group of Ontario dippers thought it would be a good idea if they literally tried to nail red jello to the wall. The second one was when the conservatives drove around a red car that had "lie-berals" painted on it.

The only reason I remember them is because when I saw them I thought to myself "that is the stupidest fucking thing i have ever seen".

Why is it every time I post something nice about the Liberals I get flack for it?

What's the problem with that? Are we supposed to go, "YAY, I love the Liberal Party" too? Personally I think most photo-ops are stupid, or relativley unimportant. Jeesh, we're allowed to disagree with you, right? Maybe you feel some people chase you around, I don't know, I can't speak for every non-Liberal Party supporter. Everytime I feel like disagreeing with something, and posting, I will. Others, who knows. But considering that this is a message board, you won't be getting people agreeing with you all the time. So I don't know why your being so ridiculous about this.

And the reason I insist that it is cheerleading, is because the simple definition is correct. Your complmenting them on a job well done, for a photo-op. There's no reasoning behind it in the initial post. Your allowed to do it, no one is going to stop you, but it's so content free that it's boring. And therefore, it's mindless and therefore it's cheerleading.

and I never said "YAY, I love the Liberal Party". I understand this is a message board, I'm just sick of people assuming I'm some sort of mindless liberal flack because of my silly original post (that I put about 3 seconds worth of thought into), thats all. I never should have posted the damn thing.

Maybe the mods will do me a favour and lock this thread.

per OP request.