Can Ignatieff distance himself from his past?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Can Ignatieff distance himself from his past?
Its not like other polotician with the odd skeleton or inopportune quote in the closet.
The thread starter should really read: Can Ignatieff distance himself from his entire life up until this point?
30 odd years out of the country.
Publicly on record as stating that the United States Of America is his home and his chosen heartland.
Ineligible for CPP, OAS and unemployment insurance because of non residency.
By rights he should be denied healthcare and forced to buy third party medical insurance, after all he has not paid a nickle into Healthcare (until he parachuted in from America to save Canada).
On the record as supporting the George Bush administration.
On the record as supporting Guantanimo.
On the record as supporting torture(waterboarding).
On the record as supporting ad hoc invasions of foreign countries in order to support the American right wing vision of manifest destiny.
Never held a job in Canada ( up until he became ruler in waiting).
This guy isnt Canadian.
Sure he was born here and went to school here before immigrating elsewhere.
He just happened to hang onto his Canadian passport by luck, if the Americans had required him to renounce his Canadian passport he would have done so in a second and this thread would be moot.
Does anyone really, truely believe this guy is going to remain in Canada if he doesnt get to be the new King?
He wont, he will be gone like a shot if he doesn't get to run the show.
Canada is far far to provincial and boorish a nation for a member of the international elite to suffer for long.
Especially when royal blood flows through his veins.
He either gets to swoop in, become King, recieve our groveling thanks and applause.
Or he is long, long gone.
But if the Libs can swing it into getting back into the bottomless taxpayer trough.
Its just gotta be worthwhile.
Trex
Trex
Its not like other polotician with the odd skeleton or inopportune quote in the closet.
The thread starter should really read: Can Ignatieff distance himself from his entire life up until this point?
30 odd years out of the country.
Publicly on record as stating that the United States Of America is his home and his chosen heartland.
Ineligible for CPP, OAS and unemployment insurance because of non residency.
By rights he should be denied healthcare and forced to buy third party medical insurance, after all he has not paid a nickle into Healthcare (until he parachuted in from America to save Canada).
On the record as supporting the George Bush administration.
On the record as supporting Guantanimo.
On the record as supporting torture(waterboarding).
On the record as supporting ad hoc invasions of foreign countries in order to support the American right wing vision of manifest destiny.
Never held a job in Canada ( up until he became ruler in waiting).
This guy isnt Canadian.
Sure he was born here and went to school here before immigrating elsewhere.
He just happened to hang onto his Canadian passport by luck, if the Americans had required him to renounce his Canadian passport he would have done so in a second and this thread would be moot.
Does anyone really, truely believe this guy is going to remain in Canada if he doesnt get to be the new King?
He wont, he will be gone like a shot if he doesn't get to run the show.
Canada is far far to provincial and boorish a nation for a member of the international elite to suffer for long.
Especially when royal blood flows through his veins.
He either gets to swoop in, become King, recieve our groveling thanks and applause.
Or he is long, long gone.
But if the Libs can swing it into getting back into the bottomless taxpayer trough.
Its just gotta be worthwhile.
Trex
Trex
You've described the man to a T Trex, except for the people in his closet. I suggest that they are none other than the same handlers of Adolf Obama. Iggy is a pathetic out of tune stringed insturment like all of the western political class.
lol He's a politician. Same as Bullroney, The Big O, Gee Dumbya Bush, aPAULing Martin, Jean ChRETIeN, etc. They serve their own ends, kowrows to big biz, etc. and only consider Joe Lunchbucket at voting time and only do enough to barely keep JL's favor. And during all this they are working toward a lovely retirement fund, having $350 dinners, etc.
So what?
Not what he said, he once used a coloquial phrase "your country as much as it is mine" As a resident at the time, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to say.
He has being paying taxes in this country ever since his return. Just like anyone else who goes abroad and returns home.
Complete lie, he has never claimed to be a supporter of George Bush. Never
Qualified support, his statement being "...it is difficult to argue against torture in the case where the torture of an individualis up against saving the lives of many."
That's not carte blanche support for torture by any stretch of the imagination.
He was indeed duped into believing the BS about WMDs, but did not support it on any other principle put forth by GWB.
Neither have Stephen Harper or Jack Layton, unless you consider "lobbyist" to be a profession.
Acutally, he is.
So do many Canadians. Like Wayne Gretzky.
What has he done or said to provide even the slightest bit of evidence toward this accusation?
He's not looking to become king, he's seeking the job of Prime Minister.
Again, you know this how?
Sorry to hear that you think our country in that way.
Ignatieff strikes back at attack ads
"I have lived and worked outside this country, just like millions of other Canadians and I'm proud of what I've achieved, always as a proud Canadian," says Ignatieff. "But to Stephen Harper, to the Conservative party, Canadians who've lived outside the country are less Canadian because of it. Tell that to new Canadians born outside this country. Are they less Canadian because of it?"
Ignatieff, who is portrayed in the ads as "just visiting" from his former homes in the United States and Britain, says: "I'm not the issue. Right now Canadians are worried about their jobs, about whether they can get EI or skills training." He says the Conservatives are trying to "change the channel" from the current economic crisis, for fear they'll be blamed for not doing enough.
YouTube - Ignatieff launches scathing attack on Harper
"I have lived and worked outside this country, just like millions of other Canadians and I'm proud of what I've achieved, always as a proud Canadian," says Ignatieff. "But to Stephen Harper, to the Conservative party, Canadians who've lived outside the country are less Canadian because of it. Tell that to new Canadians born outside this country. Are they less Canadian because of it?"
Ignatieff, who is portrayed in the ads as "just visiting" from his former homes in the United States and Britain, says: "I'm not the issue. Right now Canadians are worried about their jobs, about whether they can get EI or skills training." He says the Conservatives are trying to "change the channel" from the current economic crisis, for fear they'll be blamed for not doing enough.
YouTube - Ignatieff launches scathing attack on Harper
Last edited:
Jack Elam. Him and Ignatieff are twins separated at birth.
Maybe that's why lived in the States for 34 years.
Yukon if any one told you that you are funny they lied to you, this picture probably looks allot like you not Iggy. You probably have the long tongue that goes into your nose when you have nothing better to do. Man you are off the wall………….
I don't see how that is a bad thing in and of itself. Living out of country can also broaden one's perspective on issues, which could be a positive thing.
A person might find Ottawa to be his heartland, and yet decide to run for mayor of Victoria because he'd lived there before, has thought much about it and believes that he could serve his citizens better there than in Ottawa, owing to some combination of knowledge he'd gained in Ottawa that could be applicable to Victoria. So, would we ban him from running for mayor of Victoria?
So what? Has he tried to fraudulently apply for them at any time recently?
You could use the same logical argument against an Ottawa resident who'd lived in Ottawa all his life and then moves to Gatineau across the river into another province. Should he then be banned from running for the National Assembly just because he's a new resident of the province? Let's say he's intelligent and has good ideas for the province. We should forgo that mind just because of his previous residency?
The first legitimate argument against him in this post so far. Yes, he would need to explain himself as to what policies precicely that he supported of Bush's, why, if he still supports them, and why or why not. Though that arguent may raise questions, it should not disqualify him automatically. He's still entitled to a hearing before judgement.
Another legitimate argument.
And yet other legitimate arguments. Does he respect international law? That's what I'd like to know.
Back to irrelevencies. He has held jobs before, abroad, and thus may possess knowledge that other candidates might not.
What does his passport say? Our degree of patriotism is not necessarily directly proportional to time spent in country. There could be many reasons, legitimate ones at that, for a person to leave a country. Or would we rather our MP's al be nationalistic bigots who look down their noses at other peoples?
More irrelevency.
Can you prove it? I think you're right, but again, we can't prove it, and even if it were the case, there could be various reasons.
Let's take a hypothetical example:
Let's suppose a person couldn't find work in Canada and so went abroad to find work instead of going on social assistance. Once there, he marries there and, based on marriage arrangements, decides to stay with his wife abroad. So what are we suggesting, that he should stick to his own kind in marriage? That he should have dumped her and get his butt back to Canada? That it would be better to just sit around on social assistance even though he had the qualifications to get a good job abroad?
I know little of his personal life. I'm just saying though that there can be myriad reasons to move abroad, all legitimate. So unless we know more about his motives, his having lived abroad is a moot point on its own, and just shows the ignorance of the CPC to be using that as their main attack against him.
Depends on if he wins his riding. And seeing that he doesn't qualify for services in Canada, what do you want him to do? Starve to prove his patriotism?
Essentially, with the exception of his policy statements, everything above is totally irrelevent tojudging his character. In fact, willingness to go abroad to work, learn, etc. could even be viewed as a positive trait.
My impressions of that video:
If both Ignatieff and Harper were in my riding, and there were no more candidates, here's how I'd evaluate them:
1. They both come across as a little militaristic and imperialistic bullies on the world stage. Reference Guantanamo, spport for Iraq, etc.
2. They're both party hacks. You'll notice in the video how Ignatieff keeps talking about 'we' the Liberals who've paid off the debt in thepast, etc. No, Ignatieff, it's the specific MP's who were there before. Paul Martin is gone, as is Chretien, as are many other past Liberals. This is a new group of Liberals. So there is no guarantee that just because the Liberals of the past could balance the budget, that those of today could. Instead, he should have used the singular 'I'. So it's cler that Ignatieff supports balanced budgets much more than Harper does, but that has no necesary bearing on the rest of the party membership.
3. They're both big spenders; Harper on the military and Ignatieff on a mix of military and social programmes. In that respect, if we're going to spend like drunken sailors, then at least help the most vulnerable in the process. This is one point for Ignatieff. I'd rather reduce government spending, but it's clear we wont' see that under either Ignatieff or Harper.
4. Ignatieff's spending plan is at least more useful than harper's. If we're going to spend like drunken sailors, we might as well help the most vulnerable in the process.
5. Ignatieff seems more concerned about balancing the deficit than harper is, and is morehonest on at least one front. If we're going to spend like drunken sailors, then we'd better not cut taxes, since we're going to need that money. Harper is being dishones in that respect.
So on those points at least, I'd lean towards Ignatieff over Harper. But in the end, neither of them is in my riding, so this analysis is totally irrelevent to me. But it might be useful to those of you whose ridings they represent.
As Ingnattief said “traditionally the Canadian voter at bad economic times they turned to the Liberals for creative fiscal management (surpluses many, back To back” as well debt reduction”.
Let history speak and repeat it self as always history will repeat it self, sad for the ones who vote with out electoral candidate understanding and cause a slow down in the country’s progress report card every 4 years.
Emotional voting is bad for the country.
100 Billion Operating debt in the next 5 years is bad business.
In a big company a top position CEO CAUSES THE COMPANY 100 Billion in red ink and his head will roll, why should it be any deferent for a PM, SURE THE EXUCE “IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM”, that is the real problem blaming a circumstance that was created by greed and incompetent politicians much like Harper’s friend and mentor Bush
The Liberals are coming.
Let history speak and repeat it self as always history will repeat it self, sad for the ones who vote with out electoral candidate understanding and cause a slow down in the country’s progress report card every 4 years.
Emotional voting is bad for the country.
100 Billion Operating debt in the next 5 years is bad business.
In a big company a top position CEO CAUSES THE COMPANY 100 Billion in red ink and his head will roll, why should it be any deferent for a PM, SURE THE EXUCE “IT IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM”, that is the real problem blaming a circumstance that was created by greed and incompetent politicians much like Harper’s friend and mentor Bush
The Liberals are coming.
Again I refer to my own post #6 in which I said..
And I believe that will be much more telling then what he had admitted too..
And I believe that will be much more telling then what he had admitted too..
Machjo you seem to agree that some of my concerns posted earlier in this thread are valid but take issue with my opinions on Iggy's non residency.
Quote Machjo:
Can you prove it? I think you're right, but again, we can't prove it, and even if it were the case, there could be various reasons.
Let's take a hypothetical example:
Let's suppose a person couldn't find work in Canada and so went abroad to find work instead of going on social assistance. Once there, he marries there and, based on marriage arrangements, decides to stay with his wife abroad. So what are we suggesting, that he should stick to his own kind in marriage? That he should have dumped her and get his butt back to Canada? That it would be better to just sit around on social assistance even though he had the qualifications to get a good job abroad?
I know little of his personal life. I'm just saying though that there can be myriad reasons to move abroad, all legitimate. So unless we know more about his motives, his having lived abroad is a moot point on its own, and just shows the ignorance of the CPC to be using that as their main attack against him.
Unquote.
I find your above example to be deeply flawed and I stand by what I said earlier.
I prefer my following example.
I happen to work internationally.
100% of my work is international and has been for years and years.
My last 4 years of work has been in Europe.
Quite often I am provided houses or apartments to live in/use while I am in foreign countries.
Here is the main difference(regarding residency)between Ignatief and me.
I pay Canadian taxes. I pay into health care. I have paid into EI( no longer as I am ineligible because of self employment). I pay into OAS and CPP. I chose to retain Canadian residency. I choose to pay my taxes into Canada.
Choose is the really important word here.
Iggy chose to give up Canadian resedency.
He chose to, he didnt have to, he chose to.
He chose to pay his taxes into the States.
He chose to fund the American Social Security system and NOT the Canadian pension system.
I chose my money to go into Canada.
Iggy chose his money to go into the US of A.
Its just that simple.
Most countries have rociprocal tax agreements.
Thus you get to choose where you want to pay your taxes, assuming you are travelling around and working outside your home country.
4 years ago I had to file taxes in both the US and Canada.
No big deal and you always get full credit for taxes paid no matter which country you prefer to be the prime recipient of your taxes.
Obviously its a topic I know a little about.
And so when Iggy chose to go non res I indeed feel it says a lot about the man.
He is a wannabe American and not truely Canadian in his heart.
He parachuted back into Canada with one goal.
To be coronated as the leader of the country.
If he is denied that position he will treat Canada like a piece of used Kleenex and be gone before most of us get a chance to blink.
Do people here really believe this guy is going to be a loyal Canadian citizen and continue to reside in Canada if he is denied the PM's job?
Trex
Quote Machjo:
Can you prove it? I think you're right, but again, we can't prove it, and even if it were the case, there could be various reasons.
Let's take a hypothetical example:
Let's suppose a person couldn't find work in Canada and so went abroad to find work instead of going on social assistance. Once there, he marries there and, based on marriage arrangements, decides to stay with his wife abroad. So what are we suggesting, that he should stick to his own kind in marriage? That he should have dumped her and get his butt back to Canada? That it would be better to just sit around on social assistance even though he had the qualifications to get a good job abroad?
I know little of his personal life. I'm just saying though that there can be myriad reasons to move abroad, all legitimate. So unless we know more about his motives, his having lived abroad is a moot point on its own, and just shows the ignorance of the CPC to be using that as their main attack against him.
Unquote.
I find your above example to be deeply flawed and I stand by what I said earlier.
I prefer my following example.
I happen to work internationally.
100% of my work is international and has been for years and years.
My last 4 years of work has been in Europe.
Quite often I am provided houses or apartments to live in/use while I am in foreign countries.
Here is the main difference(regarding residency)between Ignatief and me.
I pay Canadian taxes. I pay into health care. I have paid into EI( no longer as I am ineligible because of self employment). I pay into OAS and CPP. I chose to retain Canadian residency. I choose to pay my taxes into Canada.
Choose is the really important word here.
Iggy chose to give up Canadian resedency.
He chose to, he didnt have to, he chose to.
He chose to pay his taxes into the States.
He chose to fund the American Social Security system and NOT the Canadian pension system.
I chose my money to go into Canada.
Iggy chose his money to go into the US of A.
Its just that simple.
Most countries have rociprocal tax agreements.
Thus you get to choose where you want to pay your taxes, assuming you are travelling around and working outside your home country.
4 years ago I had to file taxes in both the US and Canada.
No big deal and you always get full credit for taxes paid no matter which country you prefer to be the prime recipient of your taxes.
Obviously its a topic I know a little about.
And so when Iggy chose to go non res I indeed feel it says a lot about the man.
He is a wannabe American and not truely Canadian in his heart.
He parachuted back into Canada with one goal.
To be coronated as the leader of the country.
If he is denied that position he will treat Canada like a piece of used Kleenex and be gone before most of us get a chance to blink.
Do people here really believe this guy is going to be a loyal Canadian citizen and continue to reside in Canada if he is denied the PM's job?
Trex
One: do you have Iggy's tax records? How do you know where his taxes went?
Two: Many Canadians who live in the USA and pay only American taxes. There are many Americans living here who pay only Canadian taxes.
People generally pay taxes to the country they live in because they use the services paid for by that country's government. I for one would be pretty annoyed to know that there were Americans living here, using all of the things our taxes pay for, who were shipping their money down there instead. How can we not expect the same standards to be applied to Canadians living in America?
Two: Many Canadians who live in the USA and pay only American taxes. There are many Americans living here who pay only Canadian taxes.
People generally pay taxes to the country they live in because they use the services paid for by that country's government. I for one would be pretty annoyed to know that there were Americans living here, using all of the things our taxes pay for, who were shipping their money down there instead. How can we not expect the same standards to be applied to Canadians living in America?
Its like you never read a thing I wrote.
Just in case its all just above your rebuttal post.
I thought I had rabbited on about residency long enough.
But if you want more info I guess I can fill you in.
Since live with this stuff on a daily basis and all.
Iggy's American residency and Canadian non-residency are a matter of public record.
He has stated he did not file Canadian taxes thus he had to have been non res.
As a Canadian citizen you must apply for a finding of non-residency in Canada in order to be excused from filing a Canadian tax return.
You must cash out all your RRSP's and pay a roughly 30% withholding tax.
Any Canadian bank accounts are iffy and may be used as a reason not to grant non residency.
Canadian drivers license are cancelled.
Canadian based credit card are given up.
Canadian owned property is dodgy and once again may be used by RevCan to deny a non residency finding.
And then you must stay out of Canada for six months and have no financial transactions with Canadian institutions during that time.
And on and on with all kinds of government rules and policies.
And Viola, you no longer have to file Canadian taxes.
RevCan just goes away, its a hard-working taxpayers wet dream come true.
For about two seconds.
The cold truth is you are legally comitted to paying taxes somewhere, and RevCan or the IRS will come after you with a vengeance if they think you are dodging taxes.
So its not somthing that just accidentally happens.
Iggy didnt just wake up and go, Whoa i'm non res.
He thought it out, fufilled the conditions,applied and became a legal non resident of Canada.
As to your statement that I would be surprised about how many Americans are working in Canada and not filing American taxes.
Indeed I would be surprised, because unless they have declared non res status they are filing American returns.
And as to Canadians who work in the USA and pay taxes only in the States.
I lived and worked in the States for two years and I chose to pay my taxes in Canada.
Granted I had to file both American and Canadian tax returns.
But I once again chose to remain a Canadian resident and pay the bulk of my taxes to Canada.
Unlike say, Iggy.
And to repeat myself I now do 100% of my work in Europe.
I am posting from Europe now( if SJP is reading this I got the heck out of Humberside ASAP and returned to my old stomping grounds of Norwich).
I pay all my taxes in Canada.
CPP, OAS, Health care, the whole shmeer.
Been doing it for years.
Thats because I chose to retain Canadain residency.
Unlike say, Iggy.
Nobody over here seems to upset by my only paying Canadian taxes.
The companies and people who I deal with seem fairly happy.
They pay me after all.
Now what I will grant you is that if your job in the United States is not deemed temporary.
And if you are legally living and working in the States for some time, the Americans will do one of two things.
Try to punt you out for taking up an Americans job and not being American(this is the usual one)
Or B, they tell you that you are more than welcome to stay and work in the States as long as you like but you WILL be getting a green card and you WILL be filing American taxes. This is the one that happened to me and because I really didnt fancy becoming an American or living my life in the states I left and no longer do any work in the States.
Plus the dual accountant thing was killing me.
The Americans I am sure offered Iggy the same deal: "Stay as long as you want, here is your shiney new green card, by the way have you considered becoming an American citizen?.
And Iggy was all over that like a bad rash.
And thats why he became non res.
He held on to his Canadian passport because he could.
But he publicly stated several times during press interviews: "The United States of America is my home".
When asked about Canada he stated: " They have nice parks".
Iggy considers himself an elite citizen of the world.
And far more American than Canadian.
Once again.
Does anybody really believe this guy is gonna hang around if he doesnt get to be PM?
Really?
Trex
I read your post. The fact that I responded to it point by point should have clued you in to that fact.
He said "The United States is my Home". Maybe that's because he was living there at the time. Not an odd thing to say.
I know many Canadians who have gone abroad claiming that they love their adopted country, but in the end come back here swearing to never leave again. People change their minds.
So where did Ignatieff say he was more American than Canadian, or are you putting words in his mouth yet again?
He said "The United States is my Home". Maybe that's because he was living there at the time. Not an odd thing to say.
I know many Canadians who have gone abroad claiming that they love their adopted country, but in the end come back here swearing to never leave again. People change their minds.
So where did Ignatieff say he was more American than Canadian, or are you putting words in his mouth yet again?
Hey good day Cannuck, one thing I don’t do is jump when someone like you tells me too.
I have apologized in the past for other things I may have said that were in a moment of heating debate, but on this one Harper is a cowered, if he wasn’t he would have faced the country in another election, shutting down parliament stopped the coalition that would have made the Cons irrelevant, so to hide behind the GG and ask for a shutdown is a cowardly political act. Nothing to apologize for on my behalf, the Cons are cheats and they will bank-robe Canada if they stay in long enough.
Iggy is the man who will force Harper in loosing his job.
PS my comment about hiding behind the GG skirt is not intended to be sexist; it is stating the real fact..................
Last edited:
Perhaps. And then Iggy will screw up in his own way and someone else will take over. Either way it won't be Canadians that win, it'll be Harpy and Iggy that win. Pensions are pretty padded.
BTW, "losing" is "Where is my ....?". "Loosing" is slackening of ropes, letting dogs out, or something.
Good day L G, one thing that is unavoidable is that we need politicians to speak for us on the world stage. History has shown that the Conservatives have a record of creating massive deficits and paying very little attention on the well being of the country. On that note I like the devil I know rather then the DEVIL WHO CLAIMES HE IS SNOW WHITE.
As for the well padded pension that is a perk of the job, one thing I am in favor off is if the Governing party messes up like Mulroney did, they do not get a red cent. That would be fair for all tax payers.
As for the well padded pension that is a perk of the job, one thing I am in favor off is if the Governing party messes up like Mulroney did, they do not get a red cent. That would be fair for all tax payers.