Ignatieff Speaks. Take From it What You Will.

Progressive Tory · January 21, 2009

I'd rather be ruled by the whores at a typical Nevada brothel than the faculty at Harvard.
I'm a big fan of tax cuts, more or less because I don't like this "progressive tory" notion that the best way to deal with an economy is to tax Canadian's to death and then pay a few bureaucrats to print off diversity panthelets.

I don't know any Nevada hookers, so I can't make an informed comment, but I really like the quote in your signature:

"You know, if government were a product, selling it would be illegal. Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have." – P.J. O'Rourke

Excellent.

Canadian Blue · January 21, 2009

Thank you, PJ O'Rourke is the satirist of our time.

I have to admit, I like Ignatieff. However I find him to be similar to Stephen Harper in many ways, both are intellectuals, both are extremely boring, and both are somewhat similar policy wise in foreign affairs. I think Harper wants to turn the Conservatives into what the Liberal Party once was; basically a darwinian political machine that has no real creed and will lead based on what will get them power and nothing else.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

capricorn · January 21, 2009

Ignatieff speaks. This time his captive audience is made up of Quebec unionists.

The Liberal leader said he is a "defender" of the free-market "but one balanced by union weight."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...cunion0121.html

In other words, a free market if necessary but not necessarily a free market. Sound familiar? It seems everything Iggy says has double entendre.

Smallc · January 21, 2009

Sorry, but I don't read it that way. He wants a free market with reasonable limits...like we have now.

capricorn · January 21, 2009

That's the beauty of Iggyspeak. It has different meanings to different people.

Alexandra · January 21, 2009

I also admired his views on Obama; prayed that he would win, but knows that OUR vast oil reserves gives Canada some bargaining power.

Excuse me, madam. Since when were B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta's resources gifted to the rest of Canada? There is nothing more infuriating than the arrogance of an glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hack.

The West's "vast oil reserves" are the West's vast oil reserves and should Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe (all 3 of whom are/have been Quebecers) even suggest fuddle-duddling with the West's 'energy resources' then, Madam, any 'coalition or otherwise government in Ottawa' would be hard pressed to remain in office for long.

There are those who should take a long vacation from the constant yada yada with respect to such simpering hero worship on message boards!

`

Radsickle · January 22, 2009

that's right! The west will get to keep driving their gas-guzzlers while the rest of us try to improve and change our ways. Don't you's ever forget it; A national Energy Program was a bad idea then and it's the only solution now. So there's no way the west will have anything to do with it. Try hitchhiking instead.

Radsickle · January 22, 2009

Ignatieff speaks. This time his captive audience is made up of Quebec unionists.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...cunion0121.html

In other words, a free market if necessary but not necessarily a free market. Sound familiar? It seems everything Iggy says has double entendre.

Kinda like espousing `free market' doctrine whilst bailing out the banks?

There's nothing wrong with Unions, bud.

Capitalism is doomed to implode without some government intervention every now and then. Marx knew this. History will eventually prove this.

blueblood · January 22, 2009

Kinda like espousing `free market' doctrine whilst bailing out the banks?
There's nothing wrong with Unions, bud.

Capitalism is doomed to implode without some government intervention every now and then. Marx knew this. History will eventually prove this.

Bah! Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years, socialism is a tried and failed experiment. Marx has been proven wrong time and again. There isn't anything wrong with the gov't participating in the free market system as being an investor/customer. Capitalism goes through cycles, it was supposed to implode many times but hasn't!!!

Unions are also poison.

Radsickle · January 22, 2009

Bah. Barter and Trade Capitalism is ancient. Globalism's new. An economic view that survives these days, post-globalism, is one that includes all the countries of the world.

"The workers control the means of production"

...even on your farm, Blue.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Radsickle

blueblood · January 22, 2009

Bah. Barter and Trade Capitalism is ancient. Globalism's new. An economic view that survives these days, post-globalism, is one that includes all the countries of the world.
"The workers control the means of production"

...even on your farm, Blue.

And management provides the opportunity for there to even be workes...

Even in the factories.

normanchateau · January 22, 2009

I have to admit, I like Ignatieff. However I find him to be similar to Stephen Harper in many ways, both are intellectuals,

Harper an intellectual? Some might argue otherwise given that his beliefs more closely parallel those of Sarah Palin:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-end-times.aspx

normanchateau · January 22, 2009

Ignotieff is simply Dion with better speaking skills.

Stephen Harper is simply Stockwell Day with better skills at not speaking about his beliefs.

"Harper consistently plays down his evangelical loyalties in largely secular Canada and has avoided questions about it." Source:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-end-times.aspx

Progressive Tory · January 22, 2009

Thank you, PJ O'Rourke is the satirist of our time.
I have to admit, I like Ignatieff. However I find him to be similar to Stephen Harper in many ways, both are intellectuals, both are extremely boring, and both are somewhat similar policy wise in foreign affairs. I think Harper wants to turn the Conservatives into what the Liberal Party once was; basically a darwinian political machine that has no real creed and will lead based on what will get them power and nothing else.

I really wouldn't call Stephen Harper an intellectual and Iggy's resume sure blows his out of the water. Harper has very little work experience in the private sector. An entry level position at Esso and then as president of the National Citizen's Coalition, an antagonistic neo-conservative political group. As a university professor Ignatieff has has an opportunity to meet with a cross section of brilliant young minds. Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge. Filmmaker, author. And yet when you hear him speak, he comes across as warm and inviting. Being able to captivate young audiences could very well inspire them to become engaged, while old farts like me respect that his politics are more to the centre (Red Tories).

I think that Harper's strengths are in reactive politics. He does much better in opposition. However, when put on the hotseat, he has a very difficult time holding back the urge to explode. That's why he is often called 'scarey eyes'. They don't scare me, so much as peak my interest to see if this is the moment he will go up in flames. He has to hold back so many things he'd like to say, because he knows that saying them will turn off more Canadian than are already turned off.

I read Lloyd MacKey's book, a journalist and Harper fan, and he tells the story of a 'difficult student', a man who doesn't like to be told what to do (a childhood trait that his father often shared with co-workers, not always knowing how to handle him), and a man capable of losing control. He tells of a story during a Convention when Harper threw chairs across the room because the Reformers in the Party were trying to pass a motion he didn't like.

He needs to put that energy into lobbying or political activism, where his combative nature can be put to better use. How much longer can he pretend to be something he's not? How many times can he reinvent himself to try to appeal to average Canadians?

Molly · January 22, 2009

Alexandra, just get over it.

Last I looked, BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan were still part of Canada, with no small number of the denizens hissing 'Separatist!' and shouting 'Traitor! at anyone (but themselves) who dares suggest we are anything BUT a single nation.

No one is proposed stealing your precious oil, so you can give it a rest.

(But, speaking of the arrogance of glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hacks, how would you respond if Mr. Harper proposed that our energy production gives us some international leverage? )

Progressive Tory · January 22, 2009

Excuse me, madam. Since when were B.C., Saskatchewan and Alberta's resources gifted to the rest of Canada? There is nothing more infuriating than the arrogance of an glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hack.
The West's "vast oil reserves" are the West's vast oil reserves and should Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe (all 3 of whom are/have been Quebecers) even suggest fuddle-duddling with the West's 'energy resources' then, Madam, any 'coalition or otherwise government in Ottawa' would be hard pressed to remain in office for long.

There are those who should take a long vacation from the constant yada yada with respect to such simpering hero worship on message boards!

`

No hero worship and there are oil reserves in other places besides Western Canada. In fact Canada's natural resources abound across the country and should be used to help make our place in the world. Why not? It doesn't mean he plans to physically take them. Just protect them and use their existence to give us clout.

Ignatieff is trying to reassure Westerners that he is not planning to shut down the Tar Sands, as the Conservatives are suggesting, but instead will move to clean up the 'dirty oil', that is being rejected or at least criticised by many Americans, especially environmentalists.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,2866770.story

He is also addressing health issues of those living downstream. A PM must be able to work with all Canadians. Your oil revenues belong to you, but he must make sure that those revenues are protected.

Alexandra · January 23, 2009

Alexandra, just get over it.
Last I looked, BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan were still part of Canada, with no small number of the denizens hissing 'Separatist!' and shouting 'Traitor! at anyone (but themselves) who dares suggest we are anything BUT a single nation.

No one is proposed stealing your precious oil, so you can give it a rest.

(But, speaking of the arrogance of glib, shallow, know-it-all partisan political hacks, how would you respond if Mr. Harper proposed that our energy production gives us some international leverage? )

Obviously one must spell slowly exactly what "fuddle duddle" referred to. As in National Energy Policy. Try Google for further enlightenment.

Since Mr. Harper has not inferred or discussed or even hinted at or how the "west's vast energy resources" would be utilized by Canada to heat the East or/either to enhance Canada's (which may or may not include the separatists in Quebec) big stick with foreign states, however, should Mr. Harper do so then rest assured he would receive the exact same treatment as Layton, Duceppe and Ignatieff.

Insofar as the "single nation" statement. Good luck with selling that to the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois(?), et al.

`

August1991 · January 24, 2009

No hero worship and there are oil reserves in other places besides Western Canada. In fact Canada's natural resources abound across the country and should be used to help make our place in the world. Why not? It doesn't mean he plans to physically take them. Just protect them and use their existence to give us clout.

PT, natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction. This means that it is up to the provincial governments, not the federal government, to decide how best to use those resources for "clout", as you put it.

When Trudeau introduced the NEP, ha had no intention of running again. As it is, the Liberals were soundly defeated in the subsequent federal election.

Federal politicians get mixed up in natural resource policy at their peril.

Obviously one must spell slowly exactly what "fuddle duddle" referred to. As in National Energy Policy. Try Google for further enlightenment.

Perhaps I have the reference wrong but when Trudeau said "fuddle duddle", it wasn't in the context of the NEP.

----

Returning to the OP, Ignatieff's comments about the oil sands and energy are about as clear as his comments on taxes, Quebec's status in Canada, Iraq and torture. He changes his mind or as John Kerry used to do, makes an appeal to "nuance".

Edited January 24, 2009 by August1991

normanchateau · January 24, 2009

Returning to the OP, Ignatieff's comments about the oil sands and energy are about as clear as his comments on taxes, Quebec's status in Canada, Iraq and torture. He changes his mind or as John Kerry used to do, makes an appeal to "nuance".

Speaking of changing his mind:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...6e-b5f5fafe1542

http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article....9_139786_139786

Alexandra · January 24, 2009

Perhaps I have the reference wrong but when Trudeau said "fuddle duddle", it wasn't in the context of the NEP.

August, the 'fuddle duddling' comment was used in this context from the earlier post not in it's proper context and, I do not recall how Trudeau did use it -- in the House in answer to an opposition member?

"The West's "vast oil reserves" are the West's vast oil reserves and should Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe (all 3 of whom are/have been Quebecers) even suggest fuddle-duddling with the West's 'energy resources' then, Madam, any 'coalition or otherwise government in Ottawa' would be hard pressed to remain in office for long."

`

KeyStone · January 24, 2009

These videos were taken at a young Liberals Convention held in Vancouver. Bear in mind that they are amateur so the quality is not the best. In them you will get to hear his views on a variety of subjects. For Harper supporters it may help to know some of the things you can expect to hear in the next election campaign. Iggy supporters may have their loyalty confirmed or questioned. It is what it is.

I don't agree with everything he has to say but was impressed with his honesty. On a personal note, I may now realize why I was so drawn to him from the beginning. He reminds me of my dad. Not just physically, though my father was also tall and slim with bushy eyebrows; but the quiet intellect. When he speaks of ‘standing with someone...if not him then someone’; growing up my dad always said “if you don’t stand up for something then you might as well sit down.” A little surreal, but not the point.

Sure, he's a straight shooting flip-flopper.

Remember when he said he wasn't losing any sleep over Israel bombing Lebanon?

Then he turned around a couple days later, and said that they were war crimes?

So, what can we deduce? Michael Ignatieff doesn't lose any sleep over war crimes?

Of course now that he's figured out the deep pockets and power of the Jewish lobby, he and Harper are tripping over each other trying to demonstrate who loves Israel more. Hell, they might even fly over and kill a couple of Palestinians children themselves, to show solidarity/

But besides that, he's incredibly arrogant. He's one of those types who can't be bothered speaking to anyone who can't help his career unless they have a PHD. How arrogant can someone be to come back to Canada only because he thinks we'll let him run it. Let's face facts. We all know as soon as his dream of being PM is over, he's off back to the US.

Sorry, but I want a PM who actually loves Canada unconditionally. Someone who has lived abroad the last twenty years does not qualify.

Not to mention what a US ass kisser the man is. He and Harper can have another contest there.

If Harper ever wanted to make the Conservative party, the choice for patriotic blue-collar Tim Hortons hockey parents, Ignatieff will help him achieve that and far beyond.

Radsickle · January 24, 2009

So, what can we deduce? Michael Ignatieff doesn't lose any sleep over war crimes?

You can try to change the perspective but I think it's obvious who was puckering-up to Bush's behind. Harper's taken every cue from his idols, the Republican Barbarions, since he was chosen leader of the loser Reform/Alliance party, otherwise known as CRAP.

Harper doesn't lose any sleep over a Canadian Citizen being tortured. Still doesn't. He's more concerned with stock market gains than ethics.

P.S. Tim Hortons coffee sucks and it's not even a Canadian company anymore. Wake up and smell the %$!

Edited January 24, 2009 by Radsickle

Progressive Tory · January 24, 2009

Harper an intellectual? Some might argue otherwise given that his beliefs more closely parallel those of Sarah Palin:
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-end-times.aspx

The intellectual equal of George Bush and the philosphical equal of Sarah Palin. Quite a guy.

Progressive Tory · January 24, 2009

Obviously one must spell slowly exactly what "fuddle duddle" referred to. As in National Energy Policy. Try Google for further enlightenment.
Since Mr. Harper has not inferred or discussed or even hinted at or how the "west's vast energy resources" would be utilized by Canada to heat the East or/either to enhance Canada's (which may or may not include the separatists in Quebec) big stick with foreign states, however, should Mr. Harper do so then rest assured he would receive the exact same treatment as Layton, Duceppe and Ignatieff.

Insofar as the "single nation" statement. Good luck with selling that to the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois(?), et al.

`

I know what 'fuddle duddle' meant. I've said that I haven't seen this much excitement in Canadian politics since Trudeau used the 'F' word. However, now is a perfect opportunity for Canada to take it's place on the world stage. Power based on our natural resources and not population or the size of our military.

However, I'm afraid that the proposed Amero Dollar poised to compete with Euro dollar, will destroy that opportunity. The US economy is backed with trillions of dollars of debt and just how valuable is the Peso? Now we're throwing in with them. Is this a wise move?

http://thetruthnews.info/amero.html

http://www.wisebread.com/europe-has-the-eu...y-for-the-amero

Progressive Tory · January 24, 2009

Sure, he's a straight shooting flip-flopper.

Remember when he said he wasn't losing any sleep over Israel bombing Lebanon?

Then he turned around a couple days later, and said that they were war crimes?

So, what can we deduce? Michael Ignatieff doesn't lose any sleep over war crimes?

Of course now that he's figured out the deep pockets and power of the Jewish lobby, he and Harper are tripping over each other trying to demonstrate who loves Israel more. Hell, they might even fly over and kill a couple of Palestinians children themselves, to show solidarity/

But besides that, he's incredibly arrogant. He's one of those types who can't be bothered speaking to anyone who can't help his career unless they have a PHD. How arrogant can someone be to come back to Canada only because he thinks we'll let him run it. Let's face facts. We all know as soon as his dream of being PM is over, he's off back to the US.

Sorry, but I want a PM who actually loves Canada unconditionally. Someone who has lived abroad the last twenty years does not qualify.

Not to mention what a US ass kisser the man is. He and Harper can have another contest there.

If Harper ever wanted to make the Conservative party, the choice for patriotic blue-collar Tim Hortons hockey parents, Ignatieff will help him achieve that and far beyond.

There are a few things here I have to address since I started the thread. In answer to Keystone's comments above.

1. Taking off back to the US. According to his bio: Ignatieff lived in the United Kingdom from 1978 to 2000. During this time he was on the staff at both the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, and worked as a film-maker and political commentator for the BBC. He lived in the United States from 2000 to 2005; there, he was director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 and took a position as a visiting professor and senior fellow of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto.

2. Ignatieff has a vast knowledge of Canadian politics and experience in International relations. His father was a Canadian diplomat: "Ignatieff's family moved abroad regularly in his early childhood as his father rose in the diplomatic ranks. But at the age of 11, Ignatieff was sent back to Toronto to attend Upper Canada College as a boarder in 1959.[4] At UCC, Ignatieff was elected a school prefect as Head of Wedd's House, was the captain of the varsity soccer team, and served as editor-in-chief of the school's yearbook.[4] As well, Ignatieff volunteered for the Liberal Party during the 1965 federal election by canvassing the York South riding. He resumed his work for the Liberal Party in 1968, as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliott Trudeau party leadership campaign".

3. Why is his education a drawback? "After high school, Ignatieff studied history at the University of Toronto's Trinity College....After completing his undergraduate degree, Ignatieff took up his studies at the University of Oxford...Ignatieff completed his PhD in History at Harvard University."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff

4. Did you read his paper on torture? He does not promote it but discusses it from all angles - "The debate over torture is not as simple as it seems. Those of us who oppose torture under any circumstances should admit that ours is an unpopular policy that may make us more vulnerable to terrorism...

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7374

He will bring to the office of Prime Minister a wealth of knowledge and experience. What surprised me about the videos and the spot on Mercer, is that he is also warm and inviting. Remember the McCain camp tried to play the whole 'elitist' crap against Obama. It didn't work for him and won't work for Harper either.

"Not to mention what a US ass kisser the man is" You might want to ask yourself why Harper needs to hide behind those sweaters and paper cups of coffee.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...ta-and-oil.aspx

Edited January 24, 2009 by Progressive Tory