More liberal spin on the IggyAds

In the MSM and blogosphere, Liberal pundits are trying to spin the IggyAds as personal, and aren't doing to badly of a job either, but they tried to do the same thing with Dion, and well, we know how that worked out.

So let's clear up some of that spin, shall we?

What the Liberals are spinning but what ads DON'T say is that if a Canadian lives outside the country for any given period of time, he or she is "less Canadian". I certainly wouldn't say Wayne Gretzky is less Canadian than the next person and the ads don't depict this.

The ads don't necessarily speak for themselves, but they let Michael Ignatieff do that on his own.

I don't know any Canadian currently living or having lived abroad, myself included, ever say that the country I was in, especially the U.S.A., was "my" country. It would be very arrogant for me to do so.

The ads are only backfiring mostly upon Liberals themselves? Why? Because it's simply true that Ignatieff was out of the country for 34 years and now wants to lead it. It's simply true that he said if he doesn't become prime minister that he hopes "Harvard will take him back".

So in this sense, what the Liberals are trying to deflect, Ignatieff included, is not what the ad says, but simply what HE says, and so in effect, they're not spinning the ads, but the truth about Ignatieff himself.

And I bet, it won't be the last time.

Iggy's spin on the ads

I watched Michael Ignatieff's reply to the Conservative attack ads.

He basically asked, "At any given time, there may be two million Canadian citizens living and working overseas. Is the Conservative party saying these people are less Canadian?"

Good question Mike! Well, I'm a Canadian who's worked abroad in the U.S. many times. And no, I'm certainly not less Canadian than any of my fellow citizens.

But I'd NEVER say, "What kind of an America do YOU want. ... This is your country just as much as it is mine."

And THAT'S the difference folks.

Alberta to sue criminals over health care costs

The spirit of the bill is fantastic. The Alberta gov't wants to sue criminals for any health care costs as a result of their crimes. Sounds brilliant, doesn't it?

A few questions though...

1. How many criminals are actually going to be aware that they'll have to pay these costs (likely expensive), and most importantly, will it deter them from committing crimes that cause a burden on our health care system? I doubt it.

2. Do judges have the power to determine this? Is this open for interpretation dependent upon the situation?

3. Even if a criminal is convicted, would they even actually pay a likely very high cost?

That all said, even if the money doesn't flow or if it doesn't deter, what's the harm then?

Let's say a drunk driver hurts someone badly in a crash? Would they pay directly or would their insurance company cover it? Or what if the fact he or she was drunk was in question? At that point, it would be up to the insurance adjuster in determining this. Regardless, instead of Albertan taxpayers covering unnecessary negligence, that responsibility is transferred to those that caused the problem in the first place.

Ok, more questions...

But is THAT the issue?

What if we didn't have publicly funded health care?

Would having this law even be an issue then?

Wouldn't the health insurance companies between both parties fight it out, like they do with car crashes?

Oh, but with drunk driving, they already do in regards to vehicle damage. But why not personal physical damage that taxpayers have to cover?

Do people hold back their physical injury upon someone else if they know they will be sued for health care damages? Perhaps, on a personal level. But now the gov't wants a piece!

So...

Have their been studies done on this as regards the effectiveness of such laws?

And...

What other jurisdictions have implemented this and does it work?

I love the spirit of the bill, but is it worth the trouble?

Michael Ignatieff flip-flops on June election threat

Steve Janke at Angry In The Great White North shows another Iggy flip-flop and has kept track of a growing list of such flips.

Iggy is a true Liberal. Stand for nothing and everything.

More Insenaty!

And here we go again and again and again. Liberals all for senate reform, but it's gotta be full on reform or they won't do it, which is very, very difficult, while lambasting the Conservatives for having the gonads to forge ahead, despite being in a minority.

You see, to have full reform, you gotta "open the constitution" which you'll hear the same Liberals say, "Well, once you open up the Constitution, you play into the hands of the separatists."

But Liberals believe the Conservatives are playing partisan games instead of seeking meaningful reform.

They propose a term of 12 to 15 years so the Senate can maintain its traditional role of providing long-term perspective.

"The job is to study, to question legislation and question experts," said Quebec Sen. Serge Joyal. "If you have a bunch of newbies in the two chambers, the administration can manipulate them the way they want. The government can manipulate Parliament."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Joyal insists the Liberals "are not opposed at all to reform," they simply believe the legislation the government wants passed is unconstitutional.

Let me ask you this then, Senator Joyal:

When have the Liberals EVER sought senate reform?

INSENATY NOW!!!