Cowboy Iggy


 

Michael Ignatieff has a few things to say at the Stampede.

“I’m in politics to defeat the Bloc Quebecois with real arguments, rather than slurs and vicious . . . personal attacks. This is unworthy … I will never descend to that level of attack because when we do this, we fragment our country, we divide our country. We create suspicion and fear and hurt, where there has to be healing.”

More from CP and Canwest.


 

Cowboy Iggy

  1. You know what's unworthy Mr. Ignatieff? Attending a non-political event such as the Stampede and use it as a soapbox for partisan political attacks. Didn't they teach this guy any manners at Upper Canada College?

    • You know what's unworthy, jarrid? Using tax-payers dollars in the middle of a recession, and at a time when there's no campaign, to send letters to my house calling the Bloc a party that supports child molesters, and spewing attack ads on TV saying Ignatieff is "Just Visiting." During a campaign this is to be expected, but now the Conservatives need to grow a pair and actually govern. Ignatieff shouldn't be acting like he's on the campaign trail either, but Harper hasn't given him much of an alternative.

      • Beg to differ. The Liberals haven't accepted the outcome of the last election. Within 45 days of the October 2008 election, they signed a pact with the NDP and the Bloc in an attempt to take power even though they had taken an historical drubbing at the polls.

        Signing a pact with a political party bent on the break-up of Canda. It doesn't get more outrageous than that.

        Then, less than 8 months after the election, a few weeks ago Ignatieff went to the edge of the diving baord and had all the pundits, including Paul Wells, convinced that he would precipitate an election. I think he only backed off when he became concerned that Canadians would flip out at the sheer irresponsibility of an election in the middle of an economic crisis and were worried they would blame him for it.

        The Liberals are not proposing any alternatives to the government on the economy. They just seem to want power for power's sake. Bottom line: the Conservatives have no alternative but to be prepared for an election at any time. We've been in pre-election mode since December 1st, 2008, because of the opposition's actions.

        • Youre joking right, Jarfid? Who didn't accept the outcome but your so-called leader. Apparently the idea of working in a minority parliament wasn't what he wanted so he immediately tried to blow up any possible working arrangement, despite not having the power to do it.
          Seems to me that the fact he only received 36 % of the votes and something like 46% of the seats never sunk into mr You-cant-handle-the-truth-so-ill-give-you-something-more-palatible. Harper couldn't trump a weak opposition, not even by playing a negative-run game that effectively kneecaps people's reason for voting.
          By the way, Ignatieff was addressing fellow Liberals in Calgary. Next time you see a post that starts with "ignatieff said" i suggest you go back up to your room and play your gameboy.

          • Mr. Liblogger, can you tell me that you were comfortable with your party formally signing an agreement with the separatists in Quebec in order to accede to power? Regardless of your answer, Canadians were not.

            Pierre Trudeau would have ripped up his Liberal Party membership card had he been living.

    • Really, jarrid? Really? You're going to go after Ignatieff for attending a large-scale public event and campaigning? Really?

      Wow. I mean, not only is such behaviour entirely ordinary, it's deep-rooted tradition. Every politician does things like that, because it's just what politicians do. And you're making out like it's a unique assault on our sensibilities? Comparable to implying that an opposition party is siding with child molesters? Really? You might as well attack him for interrupting our televised entertainment with political messages; at least that practice hasn't had as much time to become a part of our culture.

      • And not only that, but according to the article Mr. Wherry linked to (which I'm sure jarrid read thoroughly, right?), Mr. Ignatieff was at the event speaking to his supporters. Not, you'll note, wandering around with a megaphone yelling at everyone in sight, but speaking to people who had come to see him about what elected representatives have been doing with public money.

        I'm not exactly outraged, here.

      • "Comparable to implying that an opposition party is siding with child molesters?"

        The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc don't beleive in punishing criminals, they think that our criminal justice system is one big therapeutic clinic. They are out of sync with ordinary Canadians on that score. Canadians beleive in punishing criminals, pedophiles included.

        Going to a Stampede breakfast and engaging in politcal partisan attacks is low. For a guy who continually says he's taking the high road, I find Ignatieff pretty negative.

        In fact, he's invariably negative. Always opposing, never proposing.

        • For the benefit of any theoretical people who may come across this thread and read the comments I post, I'll just say one thing.

          As someone who is genuinely "soft on crime", in the sense of believing that most "tough on crime" policies are offensive nonsense that put scoring cheap political points ahead of anything to do with either reality or morality, I can absolutely assure you, my hypothetical reader, that none of the parties in Parliament, (and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the parties not in Parliament) even remotely reflects my views on the matter. In fact, the NDP and Liberals in particular are always rushing to point out how they always vote along with the Tories on whatever the latest fear-mongering nonsense is. "Hey! Those guys SAY they're the only ones who can dehumanize criminals and ignore the existence of judges who are actually familiar with the details of individual cases, but look: we can TOTALLY do that too!"

          • NSC – I disagree with you on crime control and how to deal with criminals. The criminal justice system should return its focus on meting out justice. That's its main function. That means punishing the guilty depending on the severity of their crimes. Our justice system has become skewed to catering to the criminals with the principle of rehabilitation becoming the main focus. Rehabilitation is not the purpose of criminal justice. Justice is the main purpose. The Canadian public agrees.

            The Liberals hate it when this becomes the topic because they know their position is out of sync with Canadians. They don't want Canadians to know how the soft-on-crime legislation we currently have is largely the Liberal's handiwork.

          • The "meting" out justice is an American style justice system you're referring to correct? Because it's worked so well there!! America has more homicides, per capita, than Ethiopia, Palestine, Iran, India, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by… yet has the highest rate of prisoners, again per capita, than anyone in the world including Communist China and Russia? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_R
            Sorry, but the "tough on crime" mentality hasn't worked. All statistics suggest that being tough on crime not only doesn't lower crime rates (it increases them), criminals are more likely to go back to jail (since rehabilitation doesn't work for you) and thus the prison system will need to increase, and tons of money that could've been spent on PREVENTATIVE care and lowered crime rates all together (look at Sweden and Norway) will be spent building prisons. It's a cycle that never ends once you go down that road, even American prison workers admit that tough on crime legislation is dysfunctional and doesn't work.
            And anybody with a working frontal lobe can see why.

          • The "meting" out justice is an American style justice system you're referring to correct? Because it's worked so well there!! America has more homicides, per capita, than Ethiopia, Palestine, Iran, India, etc. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by…” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by… yet has the highest rate of prisoners, again per capita, than anyone in the world including Communist China and Russia. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_R…” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_R
            Sorry, but the "tough on crime" mentality hasn't worked. All statistics suggest that being tough on crime not only doesn't lower crime rates (it increases them), criminals are more likely to go back to jail (since rehabilitation doesn't work for you) and thus the prison system will need to increase, and tons of money that could've been spent on PREVENTATIVE care and lowered crime rates all together (look at Sweden and Norway) will be spent building prisons. It's a cycle that never ends once you go down that road, even American prison workers admit that tough on crime legislation is dysfunctional and doesn't work.
            And anybody with a working frontal lobe can see why.

          • The "meting" out justice is an American style justice system you're referring to, correct? Because it's worked so well there!! America has more homicides, per capita, than Ethiopia, Palestine, Iran, India, etc. Yet has more prisoners than anywhere else in the world! The "tough on crime" mentality hasn't worked. All statistics suggests that being tough on crime doesn't lower crime rates (it increases them), criminals are also more likely to go back to jail (since rehabilitation doesn't work for you). Thus the prison system will need to increase, and tons of money that could've been spent on PREVENTATIVE care (that does lower crime rates; look at Sweden and Norway) will be spent building prisons and hiring staff. It's a cycle that never ends once you go down that road, even American prison workers admit that tough on crime legislation is dysfunctional and doesn't work.
            And anybody with a working frontal lobe can see why.

          • Efforts at preventing crime are a good thing, and money spent on wise programs can be a good thing. But as an elementary exercise in logic, makings such efforts is hardly mutually exclusive to punishing criminals for the crimes they commit. It is just that a person who, to use an example, viciously rapes another, thereby causing incalculable harm to that person and to the society's social fabric, be given a lenghty prison term. Crime prevention techniques and just punishment for criminals are not an either/or. You can do both.

            Just punishment for criminals. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Ordinary Canadians get it. Conservatives get it. The left doesn't. They don't beleive in punishment. They only beleive in therapy for criminals.

          • "While 47 per cent agree that putting youth offenders in jail is an effective way of correcting their behaviour, just over half disagree."

            "More than seven in 10 think providing youth with educational or employment skills is highly effective in promoting acceptable behaviour, and more than half say the same about psychological or psychiatric counselling."- Justice Canada Survey, November 2008

            "Just punishment for criminals. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Ordinary Canadians get it."- Jarrid

            Clearly they get that the "throw them in jail and throw away the key" mentality doesn't work. Clearly you think it does, and are in the minority, so stop stating that your views represent that of ordinary Canadians because they don't. When you look at prison sentences here versus that of Europe, our incarceration time lengths are larger, but smaller than in the U.S.A. So no, the left doesn't believe in just "therapy," but that just punishment and therapy can work together, as you suggested. And stop believing that every right wing person agrees with you; not every right-wing Canadian is a moron.

          • Everyone knows Harper is weak when it comes to gun control. Under his watch there are an increasing number of firearm owners who have not renewed their firearm licence. This is because of the numerous amnesties on firearm licence's, he has introduced since 2006.

            24,234 people did not renew their licence in 2005
            58,463 people did not renew their licence in 2006
            55,829 people did not renew their licence in 2007
            66,006 people did not renew their licence in 2008

            From RCMP website: “If you possess firearms or if you handle them in the course of your work, you are required under the Firearms Act to have a valid firearms licence. You also require a valid licence to be able to obtain more firearms or ammunition. Don't forget to renew your licence before it expires – it's your responsibility.”

            Harper supports the idea, people don't require a firearm licence to own or purchase firearms.

          • Good point Luke. Duck hunters are such a lawless bunch. If they renewed their licenses think of all the armed robberies and drug-related shootings that would be solved. I think you might be on to something.

          • Well Jarrid why is it that since 2005 there have been 8,326 firearm licences revoked.
            At one time these people were considered not to be a danger to public safety, but now?

            Reasons for licence revocations include: a history of violence, mental illness, potential risk to oneself or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences, and providing false information.

            You along with Harper believe firearm owners don't require a firearm licence. People should be allowed to walk into any firearm store and purchase a firearm, no background check required or safety course completed. OK I forgot that you mention Duck Hunters. So only people who say they will use their firearms for Duck hunting don't require a background check or a safety course.

            I get your pitch, Harper offers his condolences to the victim's family. I don't know how this tradgey happened we have tougher sentences for gun violence.

          • Ahhh, so "tough law and order conservative" and all that, but duck hunters. Well, duck hunters are great people, so no need for them to follow the rules.

    • There was an event today held by the Liberals at the Calgary Zoo, which if you're from here you know is not by the Stampede grounds, that was billed as a breakfast/fundraiser, and I'm pretty sure that it was paid entry. Now I'm assuming that this is the same place where Mr. Ignatieff made the statements from this post. If so, then I can't understand under what logic a party leader would be expected to remain silent while people who paid good money to see him look on. In the spirit of fairness, it should be noted that Stephen Harper also addressed supporters at an event today. I don't know if Mr. Harper's gathering was held anywhere near the Stampede grounds, but the report is on the front page of the Globe and Mail. It seems that both Conservative and Liberal organizers need a refresher course on manners from you.

    • There was a breakfast/fundraiser today held by the Liberals at the Calgary Zoo, which, if you're from here you know, is not by the Stampede grounds, and I'm pretty sure that it was paid entry. Now I'm assuming that this is the same place where Mr. Ignatieff made the statements from this post. If so, then I can't understand under what logic a party leader would be expected to remain silent while people who paid good money to see him look on. In the spirit of fairness, it should be noted that Stephen Harper also addressed supporters at an event today. I don't know if Mr. Harper's gathering was held anywhere near the Stampede grounds, but the report is on the front page of the Globe and Mail. It seems that both Conservative and Liberal organizers need a refresher course on manners from you.

  2. Liberals complaining of "vicious personal attacks"? That's a knee-slapper.

    Where was MIchael Ignatieff when the Liberal Party, including his hired hand, Warren Kinsella, were attacking Stockwell Day's religious beliefs? Jean Chretien thought it was hilarious and is quoted as saying so in Warren Kinsella's book. Is laughing at people's religious beleifs not divisive Mr. Ignatieff? Are you going to apologize for the Liberal Party's outrageous and vicious attacks, sir? Where was Mr. Ignatieff when the Liberal Party was making vicious attacks on Preston Manning and Stephen Harper?

    Liberals complaining about "vicious personal attacks and slurs". What sheer and utter hypocrisy. It's breathtaking.

    • You realise your Kinsella schtick amounts to a celebration of "vicious personal attacks and slurs"? Objectively?

    • Yawn. More Jarrid-babble. Warren-K steal your bottle, baby? I can't believe you wrote: "In fact, he's invariably negative. Always opposing, never proposing." without attributing it to the person of attack. Because that certainly paints a Harper-ish picture, you know, Mr Go-Negative-or-go-Home-and-pout-to-the-psychic-dresser dude. But hey, at least he got his salute and a cookie this week.

    • "Where was Michael Ignatieff when ….. ". Ask CR. He knows.

      • LOL. That was right around the time he moved from the UK to the US, so I'm not exactly sure where he was.

  3. Michael Ignatieff has no tie to the Chretien regime, and if you try to make it Kinsella because he has heat with a lot of people, Kinsella isn't paid a dime for any advice he offers.

  4. Yes!! Defeat the Bloc is necessary to keep Canada strong.

  5. So…. Did the Tories not make fun of Jean Chrétien's face and so on….

    Regarding these ten-percenters, I am curious to know what they do with the information they collect.

    These pamphlets include a portion that you can fill with your name and address, your choice of who's best to lead Canada, and return to the government free of charge – no stamp required. What do the Conservatives do with this information?

    • Those who "vote" for Harper . . . they hit up for money

      Those who don't . . . perhaps go into their database to ensure the "voter" is identified so that perhaps the CPC can make efforts to prevent them from voting in the next election?

  6. "I'm in politics to defeat the Bloc Quebecois with real arguments"

    Hahahahahaha. Iggy is a comedian as well as a carpetbagger. I would like to know how wanting to join a coalition with the Bloc is a way to defeat them but I am sure it makes sense to Iggy. And what 'real arguments' has Iggy put forward to defeat the separatists, I must have missed them.

    "If we start getting into a country where we say the only good Canadian is a Canadian who's never been out of the country, we're done for. If we start saying the only good Canadian is a Canadian who is born here, we will create second-class citizenship for the 25 per cent of Canadians . . . who weren't born here. ‘Welcome to Canada' is what we should be saying."

    No one on the Con side is claiming "the only good Canadian is a Canadian who's never been out of the country" nor have they said "the only good Canadian is a Canadian who is born here". What happened to"We create suspicion and fear and hurt, where there has to be healing." Iggy is happy to demonize Cons in order to win a few more ethnic votes and if that means painting Cons as anti-immigrant, than so be it.

    Iggy is creating dividing lines just like every other pol tries to but he's trying to make it seem like his sh*t don't stink.

    • The hypocrisy of the Liberals is boundless. Truly boundless.

      They flip out when you call them on it. The reason they flip out is because the truth hurts.

      Iggy does a pretty decent contrived indignation schtick, I'll hand him that. He gets the ususal media assist it goes without saying. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy and when the Liberals engage in it, it's an irrestible target.

  7. Accusing people of being soft on pedophiles… wow, and that worked SO WELL the last time they tried that nugget.

    And they are the first to squeal and cry foul if you call them on actual things they support.

  8. not really random thought: the collective genius of his Giornioness and the Chessmaster seems to to me most lacking when it attempts to be sharpest (e.g., the election attacks on the arts; the fiscal update; random accusations of supporting pedophilia), causing the CPC more problems than any advantage that it accords.

  9. Geez Jarrid – you better whisper in Harper's ear about politicizing at the Stampede.

    Oh, and campaigning on MY taxpayer dollars – you sure lower your standard Jarrid when it comes to Harper.

    How low do your standards go? Oh, the sewar.