Classic "Michael Ignatieff" interview

[CanuckInUSA 0]

This is too funny. In case you do not know who Michael Ignatieff is, he is the appointed (not elected) Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was born in Canada to ubber rich aristocratic Russian immigrants. His family is so rich that he spent his youth traveling around the world making self financed movies and authored self published books. He has never worked a day in his life out side of academia, politics and his self financed movie/book ventures. He is on record telling the USA "I am one of you, this is my country too" (he holds a US passport meaning somewhere down the line he was granted US citizenship) and he is also on record saying "he supports torture when it is in the best interest of the state". In 2005 he was living the good life in Boston working at Harvard happy to listen to countless people tell him how smart he was. But then someone in Toronto told him to come back to Canada. If he came back to Canada (after his 30+ year absence) they would make him Prime Minister and he could do anything he wanted once he was in charge of a major resource rich country. But things have not been going well for Mr Ignatieff the politician. In the first time in his life, people are not believing everything he says. Mr Ignatieff had a chance to take a step towards becoming PM yesterday, but he didn't take it because all he cares about are the polls. He could care less about the people he supposedly wants to rule. All he cares about is his ego and mingling with his Bilderberg friends.

Here is pretty much what he said yesterday to the media:

Ignatieff: "The Harper government is the worst government in the history of humanity. We will not stand by and let them destroy the world".

Reporter: "So you will vote against them at the next confidence motion in the House of Commons and thus ensuring their defeat?"

Ignatieff: "Yes Liberals will be there to vote against the evil Harper regime".

long pause ...

Ignatieff: "But we will not be sending in enough MPs to vote against the government and ensuring they are defeated. We are only planning on sending in a select few very vocal MPs."

another pause, this time much shorter ...

Ignatieff: "Even though we are on record telling the world Harper is the worst man who has ever walked this planet, I do not want to risk running against him and losing an election. I am not ready yet to return home, I am not return to Boston. I want to be King, my friends in Toronto told me they would make me King."

Reporter: "WTF?"

PS: the current government also has Bilderberg connections. Didn't want anyone to think I was implying only the Liberals are connected to the Bilderberg cartel.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pbwing 0]

*pssst....

No one cares!!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

*pssst....

No one cares!!

You cared enough to reply.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pbwing 0]

Yeah...I just didn't want to leave you hangin'

[dreamdancer 0]

where are your quotes from - there is no link to their source

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[redlegphi 0]

I don't believe they were direct quotes, but rather summaries of how Canuck was interpreting what was being said, skewed slightly for humo(u)rous effect.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I don't believe they were direct quotes, but rather summaries of how Canuck was interpreting what was being said, skewed slightly for humo(u)rous effect.

Canuck is so anti-Liberal you do need to sift through his diatribes carefully. However in this case he is pretty much right on.
Why should Iggy be elected? Did the Czar ask his grandfather to be elected as minister of education? I think not. Have you never heard of noblesse olige?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Canuck is so anti-Liberal you do need to sift through his diatribes carefully.

Do not confuse my severe dislike of the "LIEberal Party of Canada" with a perceived dislike of common every day Liberals. My severe dislike of the "LIEberal Party of Canada" is no secret and I do not try and hide it. But this "Canuck is so anti-Liberal" claim is not accurate.

Count Ignatula ... aka: Michael Ignatieff the appointed (unelected) leader of the "LIEberal Party of Canada" (with their proven history of stealing money from the tax payer) needs to either trigger an election or STFU. It's quite comical listening to his rants telling anyone who would listen to him that "the current government is the worst and that they should be defeated" and then have him instruct many MPs in his caucus to play hooky in the HoC just like his predecessor Dion did.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skydiver604 0]

Unfortunately Canadian politicians at both the Federal and Provincial levels tend to be more self serving and corrupt than politicians in other democratic countries. here in Ontario we have Premier Dalton Mcguinty who was elected with a majority after promising no new taxes,, since then we have seen this government vote themselves a 25% pay increase, a $1 billion dollar Ehealth scandal that wasted well, a billion dollars on high priced consultants that have literally accomplished nothing

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20061221/ontario_pay_raise_061221?hub=TorontoHome

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/10/07/ehealth-auditor.html

Ontario Lottery Corporation Scandal

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090831/OLG_changes_090831/20090831?hub=Toronto

and are now merging the Provincial Sales Tax (8%) and the Goods and Service Tax (5%) into a Harmonised Sales Tax (13%) . Of course there is a ton of services such as heating , hydro, haircuts, skydiving that is only charged 5% GST are now being charged 13% effective on July 1, 2010.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/life/family/article/9642--how-will-the-budget-affect-your-family

Unfortunately for me my wages will not be going up as much as the taxes. I will get a onetime rebate of $1000.00 ,,,, but the taxes charged are forever.

Oh Yeah,,,one ther thing ,,,we Canadians have nothing in place to boot out politicians after they're elected,,, once they're in we are stuck with them till the next election,,,usually 4 years.

"The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo

[CanuckInUSA 0]

The all suck (the politicians), some just suck more than others. Dalton McGuilty is a case all in himself. But I have a laughable one here with "Special Ed" (Stelmach) who himself is also very laughable.

Just to show I am not totally anti-Liberal, I like John Manley. Interesting though how he has distanced himself from the Federal Liberals.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

They all suck (the politicians),

Ah. Yeah, I hear that a lot.

Since I never seem to get a satisfactory answer from anyone (on any end of the spectrum) to the following question, I might as well try it out on you:

In a democratic republic, by whom should government be run, and how should they be selected?

Hint: think broadly before you answer.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I don't live in a democratic republic so any answer of mine would be theoretical.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't live in a democratic republic so any answer of mine would be theoretical.

You going to give a straight answer to the question or not?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I repeat "I DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, SO HOW THE FUCK CAN I TELL YOU HOW A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SHOULD OPERATE".

Besides what does your question have to do with Michael Ignatieff?

Go start a new thread if you want to debate how Democratic Republics should work.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I repeat "I DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, SO HOW THE FUCK CAN I TELL YOU HOW A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SHOULD OPERATE".

Besides what does your question have to do with Michael Ignatieff?

Go start a new thread if you want to debate how Democratic Republics should work.

So you have no intention of answering the question. Got it.
Don't be embarrassed. Most other people chicken out at it, too.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

Quote

They all suck (the politicians),

Ah. Yeah, I hear that a lot.

Since I never seem to get a satisfactory answer from anyone (on any end of the spectrum) to the following question, I might as well try it out on you:

In a democratic republic, by whom should government be run, and how should they be selected?

Hint: think broadly before you answer.

Honestly?

A lottery.

Somewhere, I have heard the phrase that anyone who goes through the campaign process should automatically be disqualified from office. The willingness to put up with all the crap that comes with the campaign is a strong sign that the person is more interested in the power and the perks that come with the job than truly serving the publc.

Perhaps put education, work experience, age, or other restrictions on the lottery.
But make it so that those who actively seek power (and would then abuse it) aren't the only ones who can be in a position of power.

Yes, there would be problems.

Yes, there would need to be a pemanent (or at least semi-permanent) executive class.
But (to a certain degree) that's in place now. While the Secretary of State and a lot of the ambassadors change with each administration, the rest of the State Department is permanent (civil service rules).

I'm not expecting it to happen, and the downsides of having people who have no working knowledge of the government in charge of it may well outweigh the positives of having "power seekers" who abuse the system.


But it's how we run our justice system (juries).

And it's a nice dream to make all those idiots have to do some real work for a change

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

I repeat "I DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, SO HOW THE FUCK CAN I TELL YOU HOW A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SHOULD OPERATE".

Besides what does your question have to do with Michael Ignatieff?

Go start a new thread if you want to debate how Democratic Republics should work.

So you have no intention of answering the question. Got it.
Don't be embarrassed. Most other people chicken out at it, too.

Canuck is right. We do not live in a republic. I for one have no desire to either. Our constitutional monarchy works just fine for me. There have been a few attempts to replace the "first past the post" single seat riding legislatures, but the proposed "improvements" all have their warts as well.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I repeat "I DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, SO HOW THE FUCK CAN I TELL YOU HOW A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC SHOULD OPERATE".

Besides what does your question have to do with Michael Ignatieff?

Go start a new thread if you want to debate how Democratic Republics should work.

So you have no intention of answering the question. Got it.
Don't be embarrassed. Most other people chicken out at it, too.

Canuck is right. We do not live in a republic. I for one have no desire to either. Our constitutional monarchy works just fine for me. There have been a few attempts to replace the "first past the post" single seat riding legislatures, but the proposed "improvements" all have their warts as well.

Do we really have to get bogged down in whether modern, Western-style nations and their governments can be simultaneously both constitutional monarchies AND democratic republics? While I think an argument can be made that they can be (and, where applicable, are), that's completely beside the point; and it's really got little to do with my original question posed. Semantics was simply the way Canuck tried to evade (read: refuse) answering the question.

I was going to have a go at re-phrasing the question; but on reflection, I won't. Do I really need to keep re-formulating the question so people can play cutesie and masturbate with its semantics? Of course not. WolfriverJoe understood the essential question; and he gave an answer. Everyone else understands the question too; they can either answer it or not.