EI debate could lead to election: Ignatieff

Smallc · May 5, 2009

You were 12 when you started following politics?

Yes, yes I was.

You don't have to like Stephen Harper. I don't really myself. I think he's a clown. You really have no experience, however, to comment on your confidence level as compared to previous governments.
At this point in time you're barely if even part of the workforce and you likely don't have a clue what you're looking for from a government aside from what your teachers and parents have told you.

I think as someone who watches hours of political commentary every day, and who watches the House of Commons quite regularly, and as someone who has done so for years, I am more qualified than most to judge the government. My biggest problem is with thee fact that they have lied about Parliament and the Constitution. I can't trust them anymore because of it. They deliberately mislead the people, and it is shameful.

My political views were shaped very little by the people around me. If they had been, I would most likely have been a Conservative.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Smallc

Moonbox · May 5, 2009

Yes, yes I was.

At 12 years of age you were well versed in politics? You understood the fundamentals of economics, law etc back then? No, no you didn't.

I think as someone who watches hours of political commentary every day, and who watches the House of Commons quite regularly, and as someone who has done so for years, I am more qualified than most to judge the government.

HOURS of political commentary DAILY? Exaggerate much?

You watch the House of Commons? Regularly? REALLY?

I'm not saying you can't judge the government. I'm saying that you haven't been old enough to understand more than maybe 2.5 governments, and one of them was just a continuation of the previous with a new leader.

My biggest problem is with thee fact that they have lied about Parliament and the Constitution. I can't trust them anymore because of it. They deliberately mislead the people, and it is shameful.

Take that lesson and extend it over the next 60 years of your life, because you can't trust any of them. They ALL lie, they ALL pander and they all flip-flop all the time on almost anything.

Smallc · May 5, 2009

At 12 years of age you were well versed in politics?

Most certainly not.

HOURS of political commentary DAILY? Exaggerate much?

I watch Politics, with Don Newman every day...how I'll miss him...and sometimes I watch Power Play...sometimes Prime Time Politics...and usually Question Period on Sunday. When I'm at home during the day, the TV spends almost all of its time on CBC Newsworld.

You watch the House of Commons? Regularly? REALLY?

I watch Question Period most days...some days I'll watch debates, but not all that often.

I'm not saying you can't judge the government. I'm saying that you haven't been old enough to understand more than maybe 2.5 governments, and one of them was just a continuation of the previous with a new leader.

That's right...and I can tell you that Stephen Harper lies far more often than either of the other two...especially Paul Martin. Also, Martin and Chretien were two very different people.

They ALL lie, they ALL pander and they all flip-flop all the time on almost anything.

I hope I never become so cynical.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · May 5, 2009

Look, I understand that I don't have as much 'experience' as someone older, but I am extremely well versed in political and constitutional matters and really any other matter I decide to study. When I learn something, I learn all of it. I know a great deal on the subject of government.

benny · May 5, 2009

If Ignatieff would care less about winning over Harper and more about helping Canadians, he would act on the basis that, in time of economic crisis, people are mostly scared by the transition from EI to welfare.

Radsickle · May 5, 2009

In fact the canadian economy may be hurting - but it is doing far better than many - have to give him credit for that at least.

If you actually paid attention to politics over the last few decades, you would notice it is Liberals like Paul Martin who deserve credit for the current state of our economy. Harper deserves credit for lying about the state of things in the fall and playing divide-and-conquer, kindergarten politics.

benny · May 5, 2009

If you actually paid attention to politics over the last few decades, you would notice it is Liberals like Paul Martin who deserve credit for the current state of our economy. Harper deserves credit for lying about the state of things in the fall and playing divide-and-conquer, kindergarten politics.

To me, this tendency to credit or blame one head of state isn't very healthy for a people.

Smallc · May 5, 2009

To me, this tendency to credit or blame one head of state isn't very healthy for a people.

Who was blaming the Queen?

Radsickle · May 5, 2009

To me, this tendency to credit or blame one head of state isn't very healthy for a people.

No, it's not. But it is a western society that thinks in opposites and when someone says "Lib Liar", the opposite view demands a voice.

capricorn · May 5, 2009

If you actually paid attention to politics over the last few decades, you would notice it is Liberals like Paul Martin who deserve credit for the current state of our economy.

With a little help from hard working Canadians and their entrepreneurial spirit, I would say.

BubberMiley · May 5, 2009

He sort of reminds me as a wandering gypsy.

How do wandering gypsies remind you?

benny · May 5, 2009

No, it's not. But it is a western society that thinks in opposites and when someone says "Lib Liar", the opposite view demands a voice.

"My father is stronger than yours" is an agonizing game that we can escape I think with a little bit of psychology.

Radsickle · May 5, 2009

"My father is stronger than yours" is an agonizing game that we can escape I think with a little bit of psychology.

Maybe, but Harper's only an accountant.

benny · May 5, 2009

Maybe, but Harper's only an accountant.

And his father was in the oil business.

Borg · May 6, 2009

If you actually paid attention to politics over the last few decades, you would notice it is Liberals like Paul Martin who deserve credit for the current state of our economy. Harper deserves credit for lying about the state of things in the fall and playing divide-and-conquer, kindergarten politics.

That was only because he finally saw the reality behind what the old Reform preached for years - fiscal responsibility.

I give Martin credit for being a person who knew what needed to be done - and in fact he simply did the same thing the old Reform Party had been preaching for years - fiscal responsibility.

However look a bit closer - it is the libs that created the Unemployment Insurance fiasco and they also are quite happy to bleat about it now - when they are the problem! Remember the lodaing of Senators and how it makes the upper house ineffective as well - the libs are not the party of canada - they are the party of true back room politics and criminality - remember those court cases and how no one of any station was found guilty - and you know they had to have known SOMETHING. All my opinion as I have no proof - however there was a lot of smoke and some lower station people who took the fall.

Libs as a whole tend to only look at one side - which I find quite typical on this board as well.

Borg

Edited May 6, 2009 by Borg

Oleg Bach · May 6, 2009

Attitude means to take a walk about and look at an issue from all sides..it takes effort. Every approach (or angle of sight) gives a different message - one must do the walk about..sitting in an arm chair gives but one point of view. Oh and Borg - It's a beautiful day...playing the coward is provocative and draws out the arrogant..to be turned on at the last moment. May as well - win..even though you are in the belly of the beast...eat your way out. Not much they can do once they have swallowed you...cryptic? Yes.

benny · May 6, 2009

Attitude means to take a walk about and look at an issue from all sides..it takes effort.

Canadians should not elect a PM on the basis that s/he needs to expend more efforts than other candidates to represent our country.

Wild Bill · May 6, 2009

Look, I understand that I don't have as much 'experience' as someone older, but I am extremely well versed in political and constitutional matters and really any other matter I decide to study. When I learn something, I learn all of it. I know a great deal on the subject of government.

So? Swallowing facts is not the same as having acquired wisdom. That is the perpetual mistake of youth, since we lived in caves.

All premises must be tested before they are worth anything. Testing political premises takes time, usually years of time.

At your present level of experience it is unlikely you have had the time to properly test your premises. You learn a "fact" but it really isn't a fact. It's someone else's opinion that in your particular group is treated as a fact. I vividly remember how my poli-sci prof would feed us his own opinions as facts and fail those who didn't agree.

I don't mean to sound patronizing, because we've ALL been there! It's part of being human, of growing. As a "geezer", your premises to me have seemed admittedly clever extrapolations of incorrect assumptions. This is more of a "religious" way of seeing the world than an objective one.

Still, your zeal is to be commended. Your innate intelligence outshines your youth. I suspect that you will eventually prove that old axiom of how being a Liberal at 20 shows you have a heart and being a Conservative at 30 shows you have a brain.

Moonbox · May 6, 2009

I watch Politics, with Don Newman every day...how I'll miss him...and sometimes I watch Power Play...sometimes Prime Time Politics...and usually Question Period on Sunday. When I'm at home during the day, the TV spends almost all of its time on CBC Newsworld.

That must be aweful boring. Maybe try watching something other than the CBC too, because it certainly has its own spin on things.

I watch Question Period most days...some days I'll watch debates, but not all that often.

but you only started watching Question Period recently, and you have nothing to compare the current government with.

That's right...and I can tell you that Stephen Harper lies far more often than either of the other two...especially Paul Martin. Also, Martin and Chretien were two very different people.

You can tell me whatever you like, but that doesn't make it true. As far as lying goes, Chretien was impossible to trust himself. If you were actually following politics during his term (and I sincerely doubt you were at your age no offense intended) you'd remember all of his health care election promises and his promises to 'kill' the GST and then when he lied about making the pledge in the first place. You'd remember the Gagliano and patronage scandals where hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent for reports that didn't even exist and instead of holding his government accountable Chretien attacked his critics.

You're comparing Harper lies to Chretien lies? PLEASE. Chretien doesn't fare well. You wouldn't remember though.

I hope I never become so cynical.

It's not cynical. It's intelligent. If you TRULY understood politics you'd know that in Canada there are 30,000,000 voters and the vast majority of them don't know anything about politics and make no effort to learn. They don't try to stay informed like you or I do and the only things they DO know are what they see on TV and the front page of newspapers.

Most people make their voting decisions based on habit and VERY limited information and politicians know that. Historically, they know that politicians are rarely held accountable for broken promises. EVERY politician out there is full of **** and you'd do well to remember that. Some are better than others but EVERY recent government has a long history of broken promises and EVERY current political leader has demonstrated NUMEROUS instances where he can't keep his own stories straight, where he's misrepresenting facts and/or outright lying.

The sooner you learn that the sooner you can get your head out of the sand.

benny · May 6, 2009

Ignatieff wants to lower (and equalizes through out Canada) the number of hours needed to qualify for EI benefits. I think this would make economic sense only in the context where the present crisis would have been immediately preceded by another like crisis.

Moonbox · May 6, 2009

Ignatieff wants to lower (and equalizes through out Canada) the number of hours needed to qualify for EI benefits. I think this would make economic sense only in the context where the present crisis would have been immediately preceded by another like crisis.

Pretty much yeah. I mean during a huge recession you can help a brother out but making this a permanent policy is idiotic.

benny · May 6, 2009

Pretty much yeah. I mean during a huge recession you can help a brother out but making this a permanent policy is idiotic.

"I just know, in my guts, as I go across the country, that we have an EI system that is not purpose-built for the most serious economic crisis since 1945, and we have to fix it and we have to fix it now with a temporary eligibility standard of 360 hours", Ignatieff said.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/deba...0254/story.html

Argus · May 6, 2009

Only for the duration of the recession.

Unemployment hit a 7 year high. That's not exactly a world-shaking crisis.

At this point, I would rather have a Siamese cat as the Prime Minister than Stephen Harper. He is, in my opinion, the worst Prime Minister in my 20 year life.

Me too, except for Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Campbell and Trudeau, all of whom were worse than Harper by a good long shot.

Argus · May 6, 2009

"I just know, in my guts, as I go across the country, that we have an EI system that is not purpose-built for the most serious economic crisis since 1945, and we have to fix it and we have to fix it now with a temporary eligibility standard of 360 hours", Ignatieff said.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Business/deba...0254/story.html

I seem to recall that during the big receession in the eighties we had double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. It was far and away worse than what we're exerperiencing now.

But I guess it sounds better to say it's the worst recession since 1945. Hell, maybe he actually thinks it's true! he probably wasn't even in Canada during the eighties.

Argus · May 6, 2009

If you actually paid attention to politics over the last few decades, you would notice it is Liberals like Paul Martin who deserve credit for the current state of our economy. Harper deserves credit for lying about the state of things in the fall and playing divide-and-conquer, kindergarten politics.

Martin flat out lied in every budget he presented, and every speech he made. He and Chretien piously declared health care and social welfare costs a "sacred trust" in election after election while slashing them to the bone. Then he squirelled away billions in illegal accounting games in order to hide the size of the surpluses so he wouldn't have to spend any of it before election time - when he felt the Liberals would get more benefits - which was all he cared about. Martin supported terrorist groups for political aims, and abolished the ports police, which let organized crime control our airports and shipping ports. He resisted all efforts to close a huge offshore tax loophole - because his company was taking advantage of it to not pay Canadian taxes. He was a dirtbag, and I give him credit for nothing.