Environment Minister Jim Prentice is considering a $3,500 ‘cash-for-clunkers’ program. (H/T NNW)
Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff is cautiously supportive:
…Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff expressed support Saturday for the program, as long as it was offered at the right price. He wasn’t specific as to what he believes that price should be.
“Getting clunkers off the road might stimulate the auto market, but it has to be sensible,” Ignatieff said in Calgary. “You’ve got to get the price right. You got to have an incentive to actually get the clunkers off the road, but you can’t pour too much public money into it or other taxpayers have problems.”
Translation: The ‘right price’ will be determined by the Liberal polling numbers of the day.
* * * *
Update: More Iggo-Waffles exposed:
…But Ignatieff acknowledged several environmental and social challenges are presently thwarting a national embrace of the oilsands, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, Canada’s most populous provinces.
Mount Royal College political scientist Duane Bratt noted Ignatieff’s continuing overtures to Alberta and the oilpatch are a “clear repudiation” of the unpopular policy plank former leader Stephane Dion brought to last year’s Stampede and rode into the October 2008 federal election: the Green Shift carbon tax plan.
“The bigger question that I would have for Ignatieff is that’s fine, saying that in Calgary. Let’s see you say it in Montreal. Let’s see you say it in Toronto,” Bratt said…
( . . . )
…He [Ignatieff] said the Liberals favour carbon trading and hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions, but didn’t offer more detail.
“The Liberal Party of Canada is not going to come forward with climate change plans that club the industry on the head,” he said.
* * * *
Monday Update: Summer BBQ circuit kitschy, but powerful – Angelo Persichilli (Star):
…For Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, he should decide if he wants the Liberal Party to be a political alternative to the Conservative Party or an alternative to Stephen Harper. The difference is huge. In the first case, Ignatieff must define a political, ideological and an economic program that’s different from Harper’s and which the Liberals supported in the House. In the second case, he has to be more specific about the program he is supporting now, stop criticizing it and highlight the differences between himself and the Prime Minister. The worst thing he can do is what he is does now: criticize Harper but support his programs..
Ignatieff sells himself like a midway freak show – Russ Campbell’s blog
Glad to see that Michael is having another one of his CLEAR visions that inspired him to give that CLEAR and decisive answer.
It’s got to be really frustrating to be an honest grass-root LPC supporter (and I know there are many decent well-meaning folk among them), so many years having no clue what their party stands for other than payoffs to the party brass.
Can’t figure out how they can live with their money being stolen, but unfortunately common sense isn’t widespread.
You’re absolutery right, wait for the polling numbers. Then we can find out if the Igmeister deems whether we want an election or not.
This idea is nothing but a thinly-disguised way to convince people to purchase new cars and…along the way, generate sales tax revenue, employ auto workers (and spin-off workers), steel and plastics workers, and reduce the amount paid out in EI benefits. There will also be a stimulus in the towing, scrap, auctioning…etc. industries. Sorry, I just don’t buy the spin.
Now, let’s consider what else will happen. Say I still owned my 1983 Volvo and was considering buying a new Corolla (I bought my 2008 Corolla in 2007). My Corolla started at 16K but I ended up shelling out 28K – a significant portion of it in taxes (sales taxes, tire tax, air conditioning tax, etc.). I did buy the 20th anniversary special edition option package but most of the extras came in the form of the extended care package, rustproofing, scotch guarding, paint protector, and window tinting.
I gave my old Volvo to Car Heaven which is part of the clean air initiative and received a $60 charitable donation receipt. The proceeds of the sale of useable parts went to the Humane Society which is, of course, a good thing.
So, I bought a new car – my new car used resources in materials and energy to produce and ship to my dealer.
Multiply that by a hundred thousand cars and you have a whole lot of resources used up to produce new cars unecessarily. There are many people who don’t use their cars very much so it isn’t helping the environment if those people ditch their “clunkers” for a new vehicle. My old Volvo had 180K on the odometer at 24 years of age – I didn’t use my car except for road trips. Now, due to our deplorable transit service, I drive to and from work.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of these incentive programs. While one level of government is thinking of doing something, another level negates any benefit. Ottawa has a terrible express bus service in my end of town so I finally bit the bullet and got a parking spot downtown so that I can get to and from work comfortably and reliably. The federal level shells out millions on public transit and our transit authority blows it every time.
As for encouraging people to ditch their clunkers – no, I’m not buying it for one second. I think it actually does no good for the environment but it does lighten our pocketbooks.
It seems that governments, no matter which party, are intent on promoting and sustaining programs rather than giving us what we really want: more disposable income, lower housing prices, lower gas prices, lower electricity prices (don’t get me started on McGuinty’s big lie about “conservation” and TOD billing), decent public transit, driveable roads.
Speaking of negating environmental benefits: the 417 around Moodie Drive has been under construction forever – it was widened to 4 lanes but, guess what…two of those lanes are blocked off because…are you ready for this…the overpass cannot handle 4 lanes worth of weight. At the same time, Kanata and Stittsville are growing by leaps and bounds (no housing crisis, here) and, thanks to really bad planning, we have even more cars idling in stalled traffic, including buses.
Let’s face it – leave the environment in the government’s hands and we’ll end up destroying the planet…and growing broke all the while.
Iggy doesn’t have any ideas of his own.
I-Iggy’s response to this* and this**?
Iggy-May say:
“but you can’t pour too much public money into it or other taxpayers have problems.””
…-
*”Coastline surveillance to get a boost
Radarsat-2 will be able to track day or night, rain or shine”
“In the last year, the Conservatives have been highlighting their programs for the Arctic, including the use of Radarsat-2 for surveillance in the North.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon recently called Canada an “Arctic superpower.”
He pointed to Radarsat-2′s capabilities in conducting surveillance of the region as proof of the Conservative government’s determination to make its mark in the Arctic.”
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Coastline+surveillance+boost/1758661/story.html
…-
**”The distant early warning line clean-up project”
“The clean-up was designed to keep chemical contamination from the DEW Line sites out of the Arctic food chain, and ensure that the sites are restored to an environmentally-safe condition.
The clean-up of the 21 sites is scheduled to be completed in 2013. Currently, 14 sites have been cleaned up and the remaining seven are on-going. Monitoring of the remediated sites is a requirement of the Cooperation Agreements and is an effective mechanism in ensuring that the standards defined within these agreements have been met.
Cost of Clean-Up
It is estimated that the clean-up of all former DEW Line radar sites within both the territory of Nunavut and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region will cost about $580 million. DND agreements with the Inuvialuit and the Inuit address the Aboriginal content in the respective contracts.
Conclusion
DND acknowledges its responsibility to address its environmental legacy in the North, which is a result of past operational practices. It continues working with Inuit and Inuvialuit across the North to complete this clean-up for the benefit of present and future generations.”
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/view-news-afficher-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3018
I’m with you East @#3
For every action……
I don’t agree with this program. We’ve spent enough stimulous money.
That said, it’s a bit rich for Iffy to be concerned about taxpayer $$ being spent when he’s constantly begging for MORE taxpayer $$ to be spent. And will spend more, if elected (see National Childcare Plan). And has he not heard of Adscam?? Oh, I forgot, he was out of the country for some time, wasn’t he?
Somebody needs to tell Mr. Ignatieff which party he is supposed to be representing and remind him which province he is speaking in. To come out in support of the Bloc in the heart of Alberta …. it’s just mind-boggling.
Maybe there’s another province in Canada that cares what the CPC say about the Bloc, but it sure isn’t Wild Rose Country.
If Jim wants to pay me $3500 to take my 95 off the road, I am all for it. However if he thinks I am going to buy a 2010 model, he is dreaming. In the last year I have put about 6000 km on the “clunker.” A rough calculation shows that it will probably cost the taxpayers at least $25 a liter for every liter I will save on gas. Great idea Jim!
What this shows is that a lot of our economic & environmental policy is being driven by what the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Europe) are doing. The auto bailout and the pending US cap & trade legislation are two good examples.
I am against this rebate idea, but won’t hold it against Harper if he brings it in. It’s a judgement call on his part, and I’ll trust that he can weigh the pros and cons a heck of a lot better than me. My sense is that the unemployment figures are driving this policy more than anything.
Enough bailing out of the auto industry with MY tax dollars!
All the $3500 program will do is encourage Canadians to go into debt to buy a new vehicle, with the $3500 used as a down payment.
Enough bailouts, enough personal debt,
especially to buy a depreciable item that loses it’s value the day you drive it off the lot.
If this is meant to ‘help the environment’, then give a tax credit for each new vehicle bought,
the credit goes to giving students and seniors free public transit… or something like that.
So now the oil patch is “the beating heart of the Canadian… yada yada? Then he goes on to compare “road kill” to low down Con politics? What for wanting the people who prey on children to go to Jail? As far as his cautious support for the cash for clunkers scheme, out of concern for the taxpayer? Too bad that doesen’t translate into paying back the adscam money. Mr Ignatieff has his beady little eyes firmly on the polls and the second, as the separtistas say “the winning conditions are there he will pull the pin. The faux outrage over the “get out of jail you poor misunderstood pervert card” is his attempt to stay on the good side of the Bloc. In Liberano world view they must never be called what they actually are. The last time Mr Ignatiff was beating his gums was when PM Harper observed that the coalition would have given a “SEPARTIST” party control of every motion in the commons. Cue faux outrage. what a drama queen.
How I learned to lie through my teeth about my plans to tax the life out of the “beating heart” of the oil patch. That could well be the title of Mr Ignatieff’s next book.
One would think his Igginess isn’t aware his speeches are covered across the country. He can’t suck up to Calgary then talk against them in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic.
He’s going to have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do to talk himself out of his own rhetoric. He’s busy explaining to Canadians of Ukrainian descent how much he respects them. It’s what amounts to, awe shucks, I didn’t mean what I wrote, it’s being taken out of context. Poor schmuck, already living in interesting times.
This is Iffy being iffy, as usual.
Iffy doesn’t dare make a decision because that means another back track, climb down, reversal of opinion.
Straddle an issue, and then once the government makes a decision, come down on the other side and bitch and complain.
Go back to Quebec iffy,
and tell them their asbestos industry kills PEOPLE,
and tell Ontarians their industries poison their water, land and air,
we Albertans will suffer the shame of all those dead ducks.
How many birds does a windmill kill per year?
The problem with giving tax money for junkers is that some provinces, Ontario and B.C for example, have vehicle emissions programs that ensure vehicles are meeting a threshold for emissions and performance, which means well running cars will be taken off the road for scrap, and emissions will be created in building new vehicles..
The other problem is it just exacberates the problem that got the auto industry into it’s current predicament. Offering all kinds of incentives to get consumers to buy cars now they would have bought 1 or 2 years later.
I’ve been in the auto industry over 30 years, and it always followed the same pattern. 2 good years, 2 average years, one bad year. The manufacturers knew this and adjusted for it. But they tried to change that in the world of corporate greed. Management from top to bottom recieve bonuses based on sales and production numbers, and were unwilling to forego bonuses in the average and bad years. That’s what started the onslaught of rebates, incentives, free options, low financing rates.
Rather than focus on product lines and quality, management focuses on ways to get those bonus cheques, with no regard for long term planning or success.
“Translation: The ‘right price’ will be determined by the Liberal polling numbers of the day.”
You nailed it Joanne. Much like Iggy waffled on EI due to polling numbers, any decision he makes will be based on what is best for the Liberal party, not Canadians.
Iggy will say what he thinks a particular audience wants to hear, a snake oil salesman in the Al Gore vein, a Liberal will say anything to get elected, but they will not follow up on any promises made.
The Green Shaft would come back with a vengeance if Iggy were ever to become PM, fortunately for Canada that possibility can omly ever occur in a fictional novel or movie playing in the heads of Liberal sheeple.
Liberals still want to impose Federal control over Provincial resources through the back door of Environmental legislation, this will never change despite what Iggy says right now.
And don’t forget that Glo-Bull Warming is nothing, but the biggest fraud perpetrated on mankind in human history, started by insurance companies, Maurice Strong, Al Gore, enviro-MENTAL-ists and their pseudo scientific toadies at the UN.
Feb.1, 2007 Charles Adler interview with Mark Holland;
Holland: And all of a sudden the polls turn around and he (referring to Harper) says he believes it.
Adler: So you’re saying he’s a convert now.
H: Well I don’t think he’s a convert at all, I mean, look at, they’re looking to take the oil sands and multiply production anywhere from four to five times, um, and if you take a look at what that’ll do to greenhouse gases. I mean, forget about meeting Kyoto targets, we’re going to be above where we are today.
A: Yeah, but there’s all sorts of , there’s all sorts of technology that will sequester the stuff, or suppress it or whatever you want to call it. you know, pound it down into the ground Mark, the way the Conservatives want to pound you.
H: Take a look at the energy that~Rs required to extract it from the ground, uh, even, there’s a report, now when we look at it, it’s gonna require something like 20 nuclear reactors at 600 megawatts in order to just provide the power necessary for THREE times the existing capacity.
A: So, would a Liberal government ban that from happening?
H: Well, what I think what we would do is that we would manage that resource responsibly and we would.
A: No no, hang on, hang on, what does that mean.
H: Well that would mean, in my opinion, we need to stabilize the oil sands, we need, we don’t need to be multiplying them times five.
A: You mean taking less stuff out of the sands is what you’re saying?
H: Exactly, using it responsibly, over a protracted period of time, making sure that we can actually meet our international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A: So would Stephane Dion in a campaign go on record and say that , uh, we are not going to allow the energy companies in Alberta to take as much out of the sands as they plan to take out?
H: Yeah, I think what you~Rre going to be seeing is, we’re going to say that you can not exploit, uh, that resource, that you can’t basically go in there and pump it out as fast as you can and give it to the Americans, uh, and sell out our national interests and, blow apart our emissions targets. I mean, the reality is that, that the Conservative government doesn’t believe one iota in climate change – that this is, this is a shell game, that the only thing they have done is re-introduce measures that were already working. I mean, they’ve wasted a year, re-introduced programs that were already in existence and they brought them back, um, in many cases, much weaker than they were previously.
A: Alright, got one question for you, have you put a price tag on all this altruism?
H:Well, I think that we’re going to see , um, the most comprehensive platform.
A: No no, not platform, have you put a price on how many jobs you’re going to kill off with this idea?
H: Well what we do know is that, um, there was a report done in Great Britain, saying that if we act now, as nations across the world, that it will cost us what, roughly one percent of global GDP, that if we wait 20 years it will cost us 20 times GDP, in other words, this fallacy that it’s going to cost us jobs and cost our economy is just that, it’s a lie, that the reality is that, if we put it off, it will cost us 20 times more in the future, so we’re going to be judged very harshly by future generations.
A: Mark Holland, letting it all out of the bag. Mark Holland is a Liberal Member of Parliament, letting it out of the bag that a future government, a government under Stephane Dion’s Liberals, would be ordering energy companies to just simply stop it, to put their plans on hold, because if it costs too much energy to get it out of the ground, to get it out of the oil sands, if it doesn’t meet Kyoto standards,so be it.
Ignatieff knocks Calgary as radical?
The prime minister’s a radical?When did that happen?
Never, of course. But, that was the knock on Stephen Harper from Michael Ignatieff this week. Specifically, he told a Globe and Mail reporter Harper was a “politician formed and shaped in the radical world of Calgary and Calgary think-tanks.”
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Will+real+radical+please+stand/1759640/story.html
Nope, sorry, not giving one comment or wasting time on Mr. Ignatieff today.
By FAR, the PM’s performance yesterday was the stellar Stephen Harper we call support but instead today we pull to the left and land on Ignatieff.
The Calgary Herald very positively and clearly shares that our PM is daring the coalition to force and election when the public clearly says it doesn’t want one now, in the fall, or any time soon.
I prefer to draw attention to how the PM is building his momentum with his party and grass roots while Iggy ignores his at his peril.
Sorry Richard – your roots have been left behind by Mr. “I”.
Harper is also craftily keeping the much disliked coalition in play for the next election.
All three parties will wear that next election when ever it is.
Today as in most of late, vintage Harper is playing out around us and we continue to hang on Ignatieff.
Let Iggy keep talking….it’s the best strategy the Conservatives could ask for.
That’s all that Mr. Ignatieff is getting from me today.
Does anyone remember when Rona Ambrose was Environment Minister?
Does anyone remember the good legislation she put together to curb POLLUTION?
Does anyone remember the good legislation she put together to deal with hazardous substances?
Does anyone remember why she is no longer in that position?
I do.
And what do we have now?
A supposedly competent Minister dealing with frippery like this, going into the used car business.
Pathetic.
If an election is called on September 28 by the coalition forces led by Ignatieff the November Royal Visit of Charles and Camilla to communities across Canada will have to be cancelled.
Lorraine @ #21 – See? There’s always a silver lining in any situation if you look hard enough.
What is wrong with providing an incentive to get old oil burners off of the road?
I know I don’t like being behind a smoke belching piece of sh*t driving down the highway.
If any pay out or credit is based on the present Blue Book value of a car up to a maximum of $3500, that represents the combined Ontario RST and GST on the purchase of a $26,923.08 vehicle.
That rebate can be the make or break for someone on a lower being able to afford to buy a new or newer vehicle.
I’d rather have some of my tax dollars go to something like that rather than an early childhood socialist/communist indoctrination program thinly disguised as Liberal National Daycare.
Should be “lower income” , oops.
Lee@ #20: Yes, Ambrose was on the right track. Our government should not have drunk the Kool-Aid re global warming.
But then they wouldn’t still be the government now, I guess.
You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
“Not a week goes by in Parliament where one of them isn’t attacking us for not raising the G.S.T., for not raising business taxes, for not raising E.I. premiums for not imposing a carbon tax.” says the Prime Minister.
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090704/CGY_late_Harper_090704/20090705/?hub=CalgaryHome
Bruce @23,
no problem if it was only YOUR tax dollars buying YOU a car.
But all Canadian taxpayers, including Canadians who don’t want/can’t afford a car and low income Canadians that don’t even own a car, are paying.
And, an industry in ONE province is targeted for the lion’s share of the benefit.
Western Canada’s economy is being beat up with an enviro club,
yet the auto industry is again at the trough.
ENOUGH already.
In other news:
Ottawa plans monument to communism’s victims
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1758377
Soccermom, there is very little chance of Obama’s Climate and Energy Bill making it through the Senate without being gutted or completely quashed.
This will be music to our governments ears, like you say there was little choice, but to hold ones nose for a while.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Jim Inhofe, who earlier said a criminal investigation “probably should be’’ conducted into allegations the EPA suppressed a climate change report, conceded Tuesday he is not qualified to make that determination.
“I have no way of knowing,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.
Inhofe, however, stood by his prediction that a historic climate change bill narrowly approved by the House last week faces certain defeat in the Senate.
“It’s dead in the water,’’ he said.
Inhofe said the much-anticipated conclusion of a Senate race in Minnesota that will give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters would not be enough to save the climate change bill.
“I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota,’’ he said.
“They are not going to get more than 35 votes.’’
Asked if he was referring to Al Franken as the clown from Minnesota, Inhofe confirmed he was.
“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I don’t know the guy, but … for a living he is a clown,’’ the senator said.
“That’s what he does for a living.’’
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090630_298_0_WASHIN285450
Bruce @ #28: I sure hope you’re right. But the Dems have the numbers (especially with that fool Al Franken just being appointed, so I’m not sure about that.
#27 Wilson, it’s just talk, there is no program, hopefully there won’t be. There should be tax cuts all across the board as we move out of this recession, people should be able to choose for themselves what they want to do with their own money, I think we are all in agreement with this.
Soccermom, there are many Dem Senators opposed;
Jobs may determine climate bill’s fate
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090702/POLITICS02/907020388/1024/POLITICS03/Jobs-may-determine-climate-bill-s-fate
The Dems need sixty votes, doubtful;
While most environmental groups as well as a number of business organizations and corporations have endorsed the bill, other industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have called for its defeat. Despite the concession to farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation said Wednesday it remains opposed, calling the bill “seriously flawed.”
“What we see is a job killer. … There’s no question that cap and trade will cost millions of jobs,” said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, seeking to rally opposition to the bill. “There’s no question the cap-and-trade will cost millions of jobs” and higher energy prices.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_climate_bill
It appears the Greens will have a Cowgirl at the Stampede in the person of Lizzy May.
Will she be telling them how to deal with the manure that’s environmentally sound?
Bruce @ #31 and #32: Well then, I am more hopeful!
Let’s hope we can get this nonsense done with here in Canada as well. Jim Prentice, please pay attention.
Interesting links, Bruce. I was planning to do some kind of post on that topic, but it’s hard to keep up with all the reading.
Lorrie Goldstein had a great column today – Treason against the planet.
Iggy in Calgary attacking the Conservative brochure that says the Bloc was the only party to vote against bill C-268, a bill to further protect our children.
So Iggy and the Liberals continue to be politically correct. Iggy said “we should not go there.” It’s not wise to confront a Quebec view, they might get upset, we might hurt their feelings, we might lose votes, etc..
So it appears that the Liberal view is that certain topics are taboo, that in some cases we should look the other way. Do not confront a view you disagree with because it may cause bad feelings.
At times, don’t tell the truth because it may be politically incorrect. What a bunch of hypocrites!!
Why hasn’t Iggy attacked some of the Bloc brochures that go after the Liberals as well as the Conservatives? What a hypocrite!!
Why does Iggy speak up for bilingualism in eastern Ontario but says nothing in Quebec? What a hypocrite!!
“You’ll never go wrong if you tell the truth!!”
Liz J, has anyone heard if Lizzy May participating in the roping competition as a ropee?
Joanne, apparently the Dems have 36 votes in favour including ingrate new Dem Senator Al Franken, however they have a very long row to hoe on this one. The more people hear about the potential massive job loss coupled with tax increases and higher energy costs, this bill will continue to be a hard sell.
Senator Inhofe has the right idea of having people like Al Gore and Jim Hansen appear in front of the Senate Committee to answer for their lies, as well as the head of the EPA for suppressing the truth.
Well said Ed.
ed @# 36
You could hear the cringing of teeth across the city when he said that about the Bloc.
Well okay then, it may have been high five’s at the PM’s BBQ.
Beyond dumb but I agree with Richco @ #19.
This stuff that he says is beyond belief. There has not been a more insulting person to Alberta that Gilles Duceppe and Mikey defends the guys party? In Alberta?
Knock knock……who’s there…..
Way off topic, but you just new this was coming;
Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_iran_israel
Right on Ed # 36, you’ve pegged them well.
The Bloc can’t vote against a Bill for mandatory minimum sentences to penalize those perverts who violate our children and still say they care. This is one issue that should get the attention of the masses.
Iggypoo is too busy wooing Quebec voters to be concerned about anything beyond votes. How he figures going against Bloc mischief is a bad thing is difficult to fathom. Looks like the Liberals would sell their Grannies and their souls for votes. What else is new?
Further to #36:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/07/04/ignatieff-ads.html
“In a stump-style speech at a Stampede breakfast in Calgary, Ignatieff said the ads, which blast the Bloc for voting against a law that would impose minimum sentences in child trafficking cases, further divide the country.”
So there you go. From the Liberal point of view, attacking the Bloc’s position will divide the country. So Iggy appears to be saying “I will not attack the Bloc for fear it may divide the country.” Some leader!!
What a way to run a country!! Iggy, some leader!! Iggy, keep talking!!
Now can someone please refresh my memory on the status of that bill? Has it passed in the H of C? If so, who voted for it?
No one has commented on the change in Iggys pronouns. He actually said the Liberal Party, and used WE. Is that because he knows it wont sell and he can say it wasn’t his idea. Regardless I doubt he increased the liberal vote in radical Calgary, or is that french Calgary. I still say his support of the Bloc voting against that bill is a message, the coalition is alive and well. How does Duceppe, minister in charge of provincial affairs sound to you.
Here you go Joanne;
The House of Commons passed the bill June 4 and it now returns for a third and final reading. However, the earliest the House could debate the bill on third reading will be in September, which is after Parliament returns from its summer break.
http://www.selkirkjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1612563
Bill: C-268, Second Reading
Parliament: 40, Session: 2
Date of Vote: 2009-04-22
Description: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years)
http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=673
Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger and 46 Bloc MP’s voted against the bill.
Richco said: @ #19
“I prefer to draw attention to how the PM is building his momentum with his party and grass roots while Iggy ignores his at his peril.”
and…
“Harper is also craftily keeping the much disliked coalition in play for the next election.
All three parties will wear that next election when ever it is.”
It is amazing to watch it all come together. On a messaging stand point, the CPC is back in control. I am just amazed, from the 10 percenter controversy, to Igyy defending the Bloc..
Wow, just Wow. There will be more framing to come over the summer just sit back and enjoy the CPC/Goverment set the agenda for the fall…
Bill C-268, Joanne.
“Bill C-268 proposes “minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years,” and has been championed by Conservative MP Joy Smith. It was approved at second reading in April by a vote of 232-47, and will now be studied by the justice committee of the House.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-attack-ad-suggests-bloc-soft-on-pedophiles/article1204745/
Soccermom, here’s one you’ll like, I think the rest of you will too;
Good thing Gore buys “carbon offsets” to cancel out his emissions — like a fat man paying a thin one to go on a diet, arguing it will make him lose weight.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/07/05/10028491-sun.html
Iffy always seems to be campaigning for Quebec, even when he’s in the west.
Smooth move exlax; in other words, keep it up.
Bruce, thanks for all that info! One Bloc member voted with the Government (i.e. yes.) Interesting.
“One Bloc member voted with the Government. Interesting.”
Isn’t it? How does that jive?
Lorrie’s been writing stuff like that for months. Nobody in government, I MEAN NOBODY, acknowledges even that there is dissent. That’s pretty disheartening.
Someone please man up or woman up and say this outloud for the country to hear.
Once one starts talking, with facts to back this up, others will follow.
Someone be brave.
The Bloc member that voted in favor of bill c-268:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=128590&Language=E
Further to #54:
Take a look at this Bloc member’s occupations: a criminologist, etc.. And her origin. Interesting!!
MOURANI, Maria, B.A., M.A.
Picture of MOURANI, Maria, B.A., M.A.
Photographer:
House of Commons photographer
© House of Commons 2008
Current Member of The House of Commons
Date of Birth (yyyy.mm.dd): 1969.05.19
Place of Birth: Abidjan, Ivory Coast
Occupation: Criminologist, probation officer, rehabilitation counsellor, researcher, sociologist, teaching assistant
Political Affiliation:
* Bloc Québécois
(2004.06.28 – )
Selected Links:
* MP profile
* Party Website (Available in French only)
Notes: First Canadian woman of Libanese origin elected to the House of Commons.
Cash for clunkers !
Oh great … another mindless idea from our supposedly Conservative government.
Please explain how this is anything but a sop to Ontario auto workers.
I agree, OMMAG @ #57. If anyone from the CPC is checking out this blog, please pay attention. We should be done / fini / over-and-out with the frickin’ handouts, already.
Sheeeeeeeeeeesh.
More on Al(fat bastard)Gore;
At the April 24 House Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing when Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) asked Al Gore about his business interests with the Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, Gore scrunched up his face like he had never even heard of anything called a “Goldman Sachs” and, then, twice denied that he had any business interests with the Wall street firm.
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/04/27/photo-al-gores-moment-of-untruth/
It’s a good thing Al Gore didn’t have to raise his right hand and take an oath to tell the truth before he testified on April 24 to the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee about the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/04/27/al-gore-lies-to-congress-part-2-goldman-who/
Iffy was the only leader absent from the vote on c 268.
Must have had a meeting with his stylist!
Paul – that whole Ontario emissions idea was just another way to impoverish Ontarians. For some reason, my 1983 Volvo was skipped but my parents’ 1982 was called in for its check and, surprise surprise, it failed. Well, my parents were religious about maintaining their car and their mechanic returned to the checkpoint with the car and challenged them. In the end, my parents had their money returned and the car was passed.
My own mechanic used it as a cash grab, as well. I had my car in for an oil change and when I saw the final bill, I questioned the $100 charge for emissions – it turned out that he had just bought the equipment for checking emissions and he was “offering” this new service. Well, my car sucked in terms of power after he “adjusted” the fuel mix and I was nearly rammed when I tried to merge into traffic on the 417. I took my car back, demanded that he restore its power, and refund my money.
Legal scams – gotta love them.
Something fishy going on when we have the Iggster defending the Bloc for voting against a Bill to penalize pedophiles who violate our children.
As well we have Kinsella’s sock puppets on our blogs putting out the same inanity.
They’re mending their fences to reactivate the coalition to take another grab at power. What else could such dangerous stupidity, leaving our children at the mercy of perverts,be about? If this pans out, they’ll be down and out for a very long time.
Liz – The strange thing about Iggo defending the Bloc is that he’s going after the same voters in Quebec.
But if they’re on another coalition tack, then that makes sense.
As Don Newman would say, ‘Ver-ry interesting.’
Chucker has a good post up about this.
It’s contemptible politics on the part of both the Bloc and their sometimes partners the Liberals.
There is simply no reason to vote against this Bill that can resemble anything close to reasoned thought. It’s the lowest form of politics endangering our most precious. The Liberals and their apologists and horn blowers should hang their heads in shame. They cannot have it both ways on this one.
What’s even more damning is Ignatieff mused something about “…..not going there”, in other words? Where’s the leadership, where’s the guts and where’s doing what’s right as opposed to scab politics?
Wonder what long time Liberal MP from Ottawa, Mauril Belanger’s supporters think of his voting against it? Can’t imagine he consulted with the people on this one. If he did we’re in worse trouble than we imagined.
Pedophilia is incurable. Giving them jail time when they offend gets them into the legal system where they can eventually be dealt with as dangerous offenders assuming there is no other option.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-farewell-to-former-mp-dave-batters/article1207186/
An excellent eulogy for Dave Batters, by the PM. Thought some of you might be interested- if you hadn’t had a chance to read the Globe yet….
Ignatieff’s not our problem. He’s the LPOC’s problem.
While Iggy puffins himself around the country trying hard to remember what it’s like actually living here, our PM is making us proud on the world stage at the G8…again.
Then there’s Harper’s audience with the Pope.
Iggy peddles his book.
No contest here folks. Go outside and enjoy the chill summer air of global warming.
I’m sure Lizzie May will be stuffing herself with hotdogs (veggie?) this summer as well, on the BBQ circuit.
But it seems she’s on the hunt for a seat to run in, seeing as she can’t win Central Nova. See this great article by Dan Leger : http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1130941.html
The Nova Scotia Green Party raised barely $200 in ALL of 2008. That’s laughable.
That tells me that if the federal Greens were left to their own devices – no public financing – they would soon be out of existence. If you can’t fundraise, there’s no connection with the people; therefore no traction as a political party. So why are we artificially giving a windbag like Lizzie May a platform and a place at the debates?
Same with the Bloc…
Let’s hope the CPC still plans to run on a platform of eliminating public funding for political parties. I don’t think the Greens would last very long after that…
But of course, there is a plus side to Lizzie May going around on the bbq circuit. When her big yap is stuffed with hotdogs, she can’t screech out her craziness.
Support for Liberal I-Iggy and the Separatist Coalition from “Toronto criminal lawyer*”:
*”King of Pop cannot be remembered as a pedophile”.
*urlm.in/cruh
Soccermom – don’t barbecues emit lots and lots of carbon and other pollutants which will create a…gasp…CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Richco @67 is right on.
While Iffy plays right into the Cons domestic diversion tactics, suckered in to the low game he swears he will not play (haha) …
Did you know:
It’s Harper-Obama at the G8
(Spector)
Eyes will be watching for additional signs of an emerging axis between the Canadian Prime Minister and U.S. President
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/its-harper-obama-at-the-g8/article1207050/
”…According to the Times, the US and Canada dissuaded the Organization of American States from adopting sanctions…”
..Peter Kent, a minister of state in Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, told the meeting that suspending Honduras would not be enough to restore democratic order.
And he said the organization had to “maintain diplomatic initiatives,” aimed at directly engaging the interim government, to help end the crisis…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/americas/05honduras.html?_r=1&hp
LOL, East #71! Fine, she can eat raw hotdogs and hamburgers, then.
Every time she opens her bit fat yap, pollutants are released anyways…
Somebody get me a picture of her shoving a hotdog or hamburger in her face, please!
Welcome to the “Parallel universe that is Liberano land” It does not matter if what you wrote is a slam against a group of people, portraying them as “phoney Cossaks and anti-semites” OUT OF CONTEXT next, a post card which merely points out how the majority of a party, the Bloc, voted on a bill to give minimum sentances to people who prey on children. “ATTACK AD” Mr Ignatieff isn’t going there?. Then there is the “Radical Calgary” stuff which if you can believe Mr Ignatieff gave our PM his indoctrination in a radical think tank?
According to Mr Ignatieff, He is possibly the most delusional since the “devine” Miss May graced us with her presence, cut the free ride from these posers P M Harper it would be a real service to Canada.
Hey, how about that housing crisis that Harper is wearing? Wow, hot diggity dawg, good thing that Ignatieff put the government on probation. Dang, that housing crisis.
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/661601
Once again, I’m late for this discussion, but here goes.
I am going to be a contrarian on the issue of the anti-Bloc ads showing them as supporting pedophilia. Not because I like to argue a contrarian POV, but because I find the ads disgusting and contemptible. And I am far from being a Kinsella sock puppet.
When I first read about the ad, I fired off an email to the PM registering my disapproval – not that he takes advice from me.
To suggest the Bloc supports pedophilia is wrong on several counts.
1. The ads will be counterproductive, backfiring on the Conservatives as badly as accusing Paul Martin of supporting porn did in the 2004 election. I guess the same birdbrain that came up with that press release is behind this campaign.
2. They do nothing to improve the Conservatives’ image among undecided voters, either in Quebec or in the RoC. Rather than accusing the Bloc of supporting pedophiles, why not show a child with the caption “The Conservative Party wants to protect little Joey. Help us do it”?
But no. The Conservative Party, with this ad, is perpetuating the image propagated by their enemies as being the most mean spirited party, always going for the jugular of the opposition.
As I’ve said in the past, the conservative cause would be better served by highlighting the positives the government has achieved despite its minority position. Reinforce what’s good about our party rather than concentrate on tearing down the opposition.
3. The Bloc used similar tactics during the last election, by saying the Conservatives’ young offenders policy was going to do nothing but provide “fresh meat” for jail inmates. If that tactic of the Bloc was despicable – which I believe it was – why imitate that same loathsome tactic? Isn’t our party better than that?
4. The in-your-face kind of language only serves to antagonize and further alienate prospective voters. Those of us who vote Conservative surely feel insulted when baseless accusations are hurled at our party, and more motivated to fight those gratuitous accusations. Don’t you think others, be they Bloc supporters or undecideds, have the same reaction?
And they are indeed baseless accusations – to equate voting against a private member’s bill as being pro-pedophilia is truly beyond the pale, regardless of the source.
It just pains me that the source for such garbage is my own party.
Since it’s just a private member’s bill, why would they not vote for it if they truly feel we should get tougher with those who prey on our children?
It makes no sense to oppose it. What can they expect to gain politically? If my Conservative MP’s opposed such a Bill they’d be hard pressed to get my support.
As for the ads, as Conservatives I have to wonder if we’re not falling prey to the objections to our ads from the reaction of the Opposition and of course the media.
Whatever, the optics are not good for anyone voting against even a lowly private member’s bill of such a nature.
Cash for cars but not necesarly cash for cars.
To suggest the Bloc supports pedophilia is wrong on several counts.
However insisting that conservatives are all a bunch of neanderthals who would repeal all our rights and freedoms and lock women in basements as well as kick all the immigrants out, re-open the abortion debate, soldiers on the streets, or that Conservatives don’t like the arts despite the massive increase in funding…..these things are all fine!
Gabby – I’m glad that I do not watch TV. If this is what our party is doing, then I’m with you – this is a Liberal tactic.
Maya @ #79, “these things are all fine!” – NO, they are NOT.
It is precisely because those loathsome accusations have been made so often against Reform/Alliance/conservatism that conservatives and Conservatives (the party) alike have to be more judicious in the kind of arguments we use to persuade people to our side.
I’m sorry, I do not like to sink to the level of my opponents, to wallow about in their muck. IMO, these ads do that.
As for “It makes no sense to oppose it” Liz J, actually, it does for the Bloc. Never mind the bill itself. It could be the Bloc is opposing it merely for the sake of opposing whatever the government or a Conservative member proposes. That may be a skewed notion of the way Parliament should work, but it is very prevalent. Hasn’t Ignatieff often said he’s not the government, that his role is not to propose, but rather to oppose?
In any event, I am definitely not defending the Bloc’s position on this bill. Far from it. I couldn’t care less what their position is on pretty much anything, frankly, because I view the Bloc party as a bunch of opportunists milking the humiliation routine that Quebec doesn’t get its fair share from Ottawa, blah blah blah, while working towards getting a handsome pension in the bargain, the latter a criticism voiced even by some Quebec journalists.
But I still maintain the ads themselves are disgusting. The Conservatives can do MUCH better.
I’m really on the fence on this one, but leaning towards Gabby’s side.
East of Eden @ #80, to be fair, I haven’t seen the ad play on TV yet. I only read about it in the G&M’s article and maybe elsewhere.
I like Gabby’s idea of an ad with children playing or whatever, saying please help us save the children. Are there ads running on tv, I just thought it was mentioned in a flyer that the Bloc had voted against the bill. And that is the truth, whatever way they try to spin their decision. For the first time I can remember the Bloc have to defend something they did, outside of Quebec. As for this causing the conservatives to tank in Que, wasn’t that happening anyway. And Iggy supporting the Bloc could backfire in the liberals with undecided voters. Why vote liberal if they just support the Bloc, so vote for the real thing.
Maybe we should follow Iggy’s idea, just don’t go there, ignore it?
Perhaps let the Bloc play politics with themselves until they get invited to re-enact the previously signed coalition to take down the Conservative government, if all else fails in their quest for power.
I just think that we too often take the Liberal bait and spend way too much time not just recognizing the errors, screw-ups and media bias but dwelling on them like some tabloid junkies.
I haven’t seen the ads, and I too hear what Gabby’s saying but IF we had some idea from the CPC the reason behind the ads it would be helpful.
Our own party sure doesn’t make it easy supporting them when we get nothing back in return…like, say clear answers to questions and at least a response to questions posed to them via email.
I’ve emailed them a few times….getting not even a “thanks for writing” in return.
Support cuts both ways.
In a previous thread, I stated I’m a “worrier” not a “warrior.” For all the reasons I stated above, I believe the ads are a very poor idea because they can ultimately backfire on the Conservative Party.
• as did the ‘Martin-supports-porn’ press release in 2004 which later had to be retracted
• as did the pooping puffin ad which put the PM in the position of having to apologize for it
• as did the poor defense of the arts cuts which left uninformed Quebecers with the impression $45 million had been cut from Quebec’s arts budget
• as did the travelling placards stating $300 million had been wasted on 18 years of Bloc salaries.
I don’t think the tactics above yielded the desired results in the past, and I fear these ads will do the same. Since the PM’s image – rightly or wrongly – is that he controls absolutely every move the CP makes, whatever negativity stems from those ads will be attached to him. Is that what the CP wants?
What to do? Accentuate the positives of this government! Don’t wait for the opposition to grade you with its “probation” sillyness. Do it yourself!
Accentuate the positives of this government!
Yeah, I think you’re right Gabby. I don’t understand why they’re going after the Bloc anyway. Let the Liberals do that.
From reading the comments it is obvious that many have not read the brochure about the BLOC voting against this bill and are, instead, reacting to the media/opposition spin.
Itis in French but the gist is informational – the bill is to have two year minimum sentences for people convicted in trafficing of children under 18 (like a prostitution ring that markets young people). The info is that the BLOC voted against this bill.
The photo is a man leading a small boy away from a swing. Nowhere in the brochure is pedaphilia spoken of. It is child trafficing which is the focus of the bill.
They are trying to put the law in place for a lot of good reasons – but one timely one is the 2011 Olympics in Vancouver where child prostitution is already a problem.
Thanks for presenting another perspective Lorraine. That’s a good point.
Gabby, did you read the ad (brochure) en francais? I don’t think so.
How can you make these comments against the Conservatives when you haven’t read the brochure? You are all wet on this one, meaning you are totally wrong.
The brochure DOES NOT say that the Bloc supports pedophilia. I was the one who posted about this Bloc brochure as I have done for others I have received. The brochure states clearly that the Bloc was the only party to vote against the bill.
These false allegations really p_ss me off.
Have a read of Ignatieff’s astrology chart; very prescient:
http://astrology.blog.co.uk/2008/12/13/michael-ignatieff-canada-s-liberal-party-s-interim-leader-5215945/
Further to #91:
The brochure the Conservatives put out about bill C-268 is a “TRUTH AD.” It is NOT an attack ad.
It comes from Ted Menzies. It informs the public as it should.
Among other things, it says “le Bloc prefere les sentences bonbons.” Meaning, “the Bloc prefers sweet sentences.” Or if you will, lighter or milder sentences.
I’m outraged tonight after reading these posts that wrongly attack the Conservatives. Talk about working for the Liberals!!
“Iggy said the ads, which blast the Bloc for voting against a law that would impose minimum sentences in child trafficking cases, further divide the country.”
The bottom line here is that you must tip toe around the Bloc. Mustn’t criticize the Bloc because it will further divide the country. Boy, the Bloc must love that logic.
The sad part is that we’ve been doing it for years, being politically correct. I question people who suggest we just look the other way, not take notice, simply ignore the reality.
History is filled with tragic results that came about due to this foolish outlook.
If we fail to speak up for the truth, we all lose!! In society, I’m afraid there are those among us with preconceived views that belie what they speak.
Further to #93:
The Conservative brochure says “”votre depute bloquiste a vote contre la protection des enfants.”
Meaning, “your Bloc deputy has voted against the protection of children.”
This is NOT an attack ad, this is a TRUTH AD!! It simply tells the truth.
Guess who voted against this bill:
Thursday September 29, 2005
Canadian Parliament Votes Against Raising Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/sep/05092906.html
But the Conservatives finally got it through:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/420103
Why don’t you just call him by his name? Don’t you think using terms like “Iggo-Waffle” is just stupid?
Ed @ 91 – Please let’s try to refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
Does anyone have the text from the actual brochure or screen shots of the ads?
I think we need to examine them first hand. Thanks.
I think I’ll start a new thread on this subject at some point. Just trying to gather my thoughts.
But I really ask folks to try to remain objective.
The truth in any ads or brochures does not need to be defended.
We have to hope our politicians, all of them, will drop their games and do what’s right to protect us all from dangerous perverts and all criminals.
The Bloc is not in the HOC for the good of Canada, we can always expect them to cause as much dissent and division as possible.
H-Crisis? More? Where?
“”There was some pent-up demand, things almost froze over solid over the winter.”"
“It was the best June for sales since the board started tracking the numbers in the mid 1960s.”
Global pent-up, er slump unthawed.
It’s not fair. And it’s H-is fault.
…-
“Housing sales soar in Ontario’s biggest cities
TORONTO – Despite all the talk of a housing downturn and economic crisis in Ontario, the province’s two biggest cities both saw record housing resales last month for the month of June.
The Toronto Real Estate Board said Monday there were 10,955 sales in the Greater Toronto Area in June, a 27% increase from the 8,600 homes sold a year ago. It was the best June for sales since the board started tracking the numbers in the mid 1960s.”
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1764824
Ed said: July 6th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Gabby, did you read the ad (brochure) en francais?”
Ed, as I mentioned in my reply to East of Eden in #83, I only read about the ad in a G&M article which I accessed via National Newswatch
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-attack-ad-suggests-bloc-soft-on-pedophiles/article1204745/
and perhaps I read about the same ad elsewhere. Where, I don’t remember.
Reading that article prompted me to send an email to the PM (dated July 2), so my disapproval has nothing to do with you, when you said “I was the one who posted about this Bloc brochure.”
I do not share your POV on these brochures, ads, or whatever they are.
Am I not allowed to have my own ideas on them?
Am I to adhere to your POV?
No.
Sorry, I can and do find the ads offensive, as I have found others in the past.
Does that mean I am pushing the Liberal POV as you suggest?
“I’m outraged tonight after reading these posts that wrongly attack the Conservatives. Talk about working for the Liberals!!”
Far from it.
It is precisely because I am truly committed to the Conservative Party, it is because I have made substantial donations since 2005, that I feel justified in expressing my disapproval with such ads.
Like anyone else who posts on blogs, readers are free to accept, reject or be indifferent to any POV that I’ve presented.
And I am free to post opinions which are not a carbon copy of yours.
It is the posters and media who have used the world pedophilea etc. The brochure never says that. So, it is not the conservative party that made that connection but those reporting on the brochure. Why is that, unless that is what they, not the party, believe.
Well said, Gabby. If we all made the identical comments, this would be a boring blog indeed.
So, it is not the conservative party that made that connection but those reporting on the brochure.
So you’re saying that it’s all in the interpretation right?
Does anyone have links to the actual documents? Thanks.
Michael Ignatieff says in Calgary,
“”They’re basically accusing the Bloc Quebecois of being soft on pedophiles,” he said.”
from;
http://www.dose.ca/news/story.html?id=1760649
and the headline from the Globe,
“Tory attack ad suggests Bloc soft on pedophiles”
There is a front page screen shot at this site.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-attack-ad-suggests-bloc-soft-on-pedophiles/article1204745/
The WORD pedophile, was not ever used, TRAFFICING was.
The WORD was used by others and it would seem, has been passed around inaccurately, from what I can tell.
Thanks for those links Bec.
“it’s all in the interpretation right?”
YES! And by all counts some have bought the interpretation presented by spin and hysterics spun by the usual suspects.
I think that the ad was to make people think. If their minds wandered that’s their problem, and not that of the party.
In the end the ad did the job by planting doubt about the Bloc and Iggy too jumped on the bandwagon.
By oppo. standards that black and white ad says nothing about pedophiles and it does speak more to child trafficking than anything else.
Looks like some of us(including me) fell for the spin created by the opposition. That is their choice.
I respect the position of those who object to the ad, but it would have been much easier to deal with if the party could have explained it better….but then, it wouldn’t have had the desired effect.
Actually, the ad reminds me of the “Daisy” ad, the one Kinsella’s always talking about in its simplicity and unspoken meaning.
Stop wasting time on this.
Today the “Tory’s” are “climing to the top of the polls.”
The Liberals under Iggy according to Peter Donolo have plateaued and “Mr. Ignatieff’s honeymoon is over.”
Great news for the PM.
And then we have the Michael Jackson circus.
Nuts!
P.S. – of all of the pet names for Michael Ignatieff that we’ve read, I think the Iggo-Waffle is the most appropriate and speaks exactly to the man’s history of well, waffling.
I like that one best.
I can just picture a giant waffle dogging Iggy during the next campaign as Michael tours Canada next.
The papers are saying that while the PM’s at the G8 and visiting the Pope, Mr. Ignatieff is giving a lecture. Mary T. – is this part of the “Me” tour you’ve been talking about?
Your update Joanne from Russ Campbell’s site, was a HUGE GAFFE.
Poverty stricken Community Centres even provide FREE Stampede breakfasts. No one charges ever as it is part of the friendly tradition of “come on down”.
Scary eh? How quick the opposition is to put their spin on the truth, to put the focus where it does not belong and how fast the spinners on the blogs and media make a lie from truth and the bare facts.
Is Kinsella feeding Ignatieff as well as his sock puppets on the blogs?
Huge gaffe?
OT, but there is a news conference going on re the serial killer, killed yesterday. His rap sheet is 25 pages long. Why was he on the street. Perhaps this event will finally wake people up to the soft on crime judges in both the US and Canada. This guy was released 2 wks ago. Time to put lawyers and judges on trial for their bleeding heart attitudes towards criminals.
Anyone against mimimum or maximum sentences should be held responsible when one of their protected species gets out of jail and continues with their lifestyle of breaking the laws.
Exactly MaryT.
“Huge gaffe?”
Yes, the Iggiasm team charged 40.00 to SEE the King at their Stampede Breakfast.
That would be like asking for a donation to pay for the food at a wedding. You just don’t ever do it.
They turned off A LOT of supporters and embarrassed the he!! out of themselves.
Ha ha! Oh I see how my sentence was confusing.
Remember friends, it is still EARLY here. Sorry!
NNW has stories today, re the truth ad that the bloc voted against a bill for mimimum sentences for child molesters.
It was LeBlanc at the G&M that used the word pervert when describing the ad. Travers has a column that could be misinterrupted as supporting the conservatives.
There is a saying about beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps perversion is in the eye of columnists.
And maybe they are trying to divert attention from the fact the conservatives are rising in the polls.
Re Iggys ME tour. He is going on vacation, after giving his speech to some worldwide liberal organization in London tomorrow. His breakfast was cheap, only 40.00/person. To hear his speach it is much more. And, those stampede breakfasts are free, except for Iggy’s.
And why did LeBlanc lump men in plaid shirts as perverts. What kind of shirt did Iggy wear in Calgary.
[...] one side we have the belief that this is not a good idea, spearheaded by Gabby. She worries that this approach will backfire and would prefer to see some positive ads put out [...]
The “Huge Gaffe” in my opinion was that of the LPOC which seem to have convinced their illustrious leader of nothing in particular..not even grassroot liberals to turn a usually wonderful and free gesture of a pancake breakfast offered up by many during the Stampede into a fundraiser for the party.
BIG GAFFE IS RIGHT!
And worth attention and kudos today is Calgary TV producer and freelancer Karen Klassen
who penned in the linked item at Russ Campbell’s blog,
“the Liberals show themselves to be as aloof as they’ve always been. Are they afraid of us? Are they cheap? Aren’t we worth it? Haven’t they seen the fabulous photo ops of homeboy Stephen Harper, spatula in hand? As a voter I’m part of a panel of judges and this week the votes are in. In American Idol parlance, “Dawg, you didn’t bring it. Dude, that was the wrong choice for you.
Liberals, hope you enjoyed breakfast with your old friends because I don’t think you made any new ones.”
Iggo-Waffle’s Flapjack Fundraiser Flop.
Even from Ontario I can see how it would be offensive to Calgarians to see an event usually offered up in good will and welcoming style to
be turned into a shillfest for the LPOC.
For those who haven’t been over to Sandy’s yet, Lorraine has dropped a bomb there re: the rumour circulating that the “Waffle” is allegedly eyeing David Miller’s job.
Mary,
Do you have any statistics on the number of people with long records who become serial killers? Do you think we should put everyone in jail because less than 1% of them might end up killing someone?
Gabby in QC @ #102:
“Reading that article prompted me to send an email to the PM (dated July 2), so my disapproval has nothing to do with you, when you said “I was the one who posted about this Bloc brochure.”
Obviously, your disapproval has nothing to do with me. The reason I said that I was the one who posted about this Bloc brochure or leaflet was to point out that I read the brochure. So I don’t understand your comment.
“I do not share your POV on these brochures, ads, or whatever they are.
Am I not allowed to have my own ideas on them?
Am I to adhere to your POV?”
Where did I say you had to agree with me? Where did I say you are not allowed to have your own ideas? All I have done is challenge what you have said. I’ve given my point of view.
Am I free to disagree with you, to express my ideas? Actually, you are accusing me for giving my point of view. You are telling me I should not challenge your viewpoint because it offends you.
“Sorry, I can and do find the ads offensive, as I have found others in the past.”
How is THIS ad offensive?? It simply tells the truth.
“Does that mean I am pushing the Liberal POV as you suggest?”
I did NOT suggest that you were pushing the Liberal POV. Do not put words in my mouth, it’s unsanitary. The point I was making, and it’s clear, is that comments that falsely accuse the Conservatives help the Liberals. It only benefits them. It is you who is make this a personal thing, not me. You take what I say personally.
“It is precisely because I am truly committed to the Conservative Party, it is because I have made substantial donations since 2005, that I feel justified in expressing my disapproval with such ads.”
Why do you need to justify your right to free expression? You do not need to justify yourself to me or to anyone else. We are free.
“Like anyone else who posts on blogs, readers are free to accept, reject or be indifferent to any POV that I’ve presented.”
You are absolutely correct. How about extending that freedom of expression to me as well??
“And I am free to post opinions which are not a carbon copy of yours.”
I deeply resent this type of comment. You are implying things about me that are completely false!! The question is “am I free to disagree with you?”
That well-known separatist, Pierre Bourgault, wrote an essay where he stated that freedom of expression is paramount. He wanted people to be able to freely express their points of view, even those that were extreme, that were offensive and offended people.
He did not like censorship. He wanted to be able to confront people with opposing views, especially extreme views. He wanted things to be in the open, to fully expose views whether good or bad in order to deal with them.
This he preferred to suppressing views that only lead to negative consequences down the road.
Love this Full Comment piece from NP.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/07/liberal-flapjack-folly.aspx
Bec @ # 116 – lol! I see what you’re saying now.
Heh. Frmgrl – That’s what I call small-town cheap.
It doesn’t matter if criminals with long records kill or not. As long as they are in jail they can’t commit any crime. I don’t have stats, but think of the murders of those 4 mounties. This killer had a rap sheet 25 pages long and he had been let out of jail 2 wks ago. Why wasn’t the 3 strike law used to keep him in jail.
Ed @ #121, you said I take your comments too personally.
Forgive me, but you wrote “Gabby, did you read the ad (brochure) en francais? I don’t think so”
You then go on to explain what you believe the brochure contains, which you are perfectly free to do.
In the process, you take many of my own statements and give your interpretation of them.
I think it would be reasonable to conclude that most of your arguments were directed at mine.
Nowhere, in any of my comments, did I say your viewpoint offends me. “You are telling me I should not challenge your viewpoint because it offends you.”
So who’s putting words in whose mouth?
Once again, forgive me, but I don’t think I was the one taking things “personally.” I merely reacted to what you said about my views on the ad/brochure, and you reacted to mine.
I guess we differ not only on this brochure, but also on what constitutes debate and what “taking things personally” means.
Gabby, the point I made was that it was obvious you didn’t read the brochure. That’s not personal.
I read the brochure and posted what it said. I did not post what I believed it said.
I quoted a number of your statements in order to respond to them. I was not interpreting your statements, I was responding to what you said. Obviously, my comments were directed to you since I was responding to what you said.
“Nowhere, in any of my comments, did I say your viewpoint offends me.”
Then, what about this?
“Am I not allowed to have my own ideas on them?
Am I to adhere to your POV?”
The tone of your entire post tells me you were offended.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you took it personally. Maybe that’s why Joanne accused me of making a personal attack.
You actually accused me by implying that I expected you to conform to my POV.
“I guess we differ not only on this brochure, but also on what constitutes debate and what “taking things personally” means.”
I read the brochure, you stated you didn’t. I do not understand the rest of your statement.
I have not taken anything personally. I challenged what you said about the brochure, that’s all.
As for debating, how do we differ about what constitutes debate? I’d like to know. I’m not the one making these assertions.
BTW, did you receive the latest Conservative brochure? Do you agree with it?
Ed @ #127, it is pointless for me to try to convince you that I am not taking your rebuttals personally, in the sense of being offended. You have apparently made up your mind on that point. But …
In your latest reply to me @ #127 you say: “Your post clearly demonstrates that you took it personally. Maybe that’s why Joanne accused me of making a personal attack.”
If you double-check the chronology, however, you will notice that Joanne said this @ #98:
“July 7th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Ed @ 91 – Please let’s try to refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.”
It is only later @ #102 that I responded to your initial question: “Gabby, did you read the ad (brochure) en francais? I don’t think so” with the rest of your points.
In other words, Joanne could not have admonished you on my account (unless she’s a mind reader and knew what I was going to write in reply), because I had not yet responded to your post, and it is in that later post #102 where you perceive I was offended.
See?
Ed @ 91 rebuttal to Gabby.
Joanne @ 98 admonition to Ed.
Gabby @ 102 rebuttal to Ed.
Ed @ 121 perceives Gabby as offended.
To use a Harperism “Let me be clear.” I was NOT offended, and nowhere did I say your viewpoint offends me, as you surmised.
As to your last question “did you receive the latest Conservative brochure?”
Actually, I was wondering how come I don’t receive Conservative brochures, except for survey-like literature along with solicitations for more donations. I live in a riding held by the Liberals (through no fault of my own!). Do you live in a riding held by the Bloc? Is that perhaps why you receive them?
Ok, Joanne looked at my post and figured it was a personal attack. Then you answered my post and it appeared to me you were offended. But, ok, I take your word that you were not offended. That’s good to know because no personal attack was on my agenda. I learned long ago you attack the idea not the person. Yes, I’m in a Bloc riding. Maybe that’s what they’re doing. Have you received any Bloc brochures?
Have I received any Bloc brochures?
No, not lately. I believe the last one was just prior to or during last fall’s election. And to be frank, as soon as I see it’s from the opposition I file it in the recycling bin.