drummindiver
-
Posts
2,304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by drummindiver
-
I respectfully disagree. Clearly though, even a courteous comment aimed in your direction is met with scorn and ad hom.
-
Thanks Stephen Harper.
- Show previous comments 3 more
-
Anyone who chooses to run and participate in public service should be thanked. As to legacy, that is what time is for.
-
Thank you for staying on as leader of the CPC and ensuring that they didn't win this election.
-
Further testament to the class of some of the left.
-
Argus' replies are intelligent and witty. Lot less ad hom than many, if not most of the other posters on here. Who on this board do you believe "elevated above the level of discussion"? Seriously, I'm interested in your answer.
-
My apologies, indeed you did. Allow me to state then, that it was fact, not perception that the Liberals lost due to nefariousness and illegal dealings.
-
Absolutely agreed. Got sidetracked due to other comments. But hysterical hyperbole stating it cost us 9 years of the Conservative government. and illegal activity? Again, the Liberals under Chretien/Martin have spawned more jail time than any other government in Canadian history. So, big guy, your claim the Conservatives lost due to a perception they were criminal is just that, opposed to the reality the Liberals clearly were.
-
So, that is correct in saying that is what the inquiry found. Lets not gloss over what actually happened. See my previous post.
-
The amount that was initially investigated missing was $49 million. "Whatever happened to the federal Liberal sponsorship scandal? A story in Quebec's La Presse notes Ottawa is still working at recovering the $49 million found to have been misappropriated in the mid 1990s." Then lawyers. "Gomery told La Presse he's not surprised by the ballooning legal costs during the current legal wranglings." In the link you posted, it also clearly state almost $100 million dollars is awarded to Liberal friendly advertising firms for no work. Also, "May 8 — Auditor General Sheila Fraser issues a report accusing Public Works bureaucrats of having broken "just about every rule in the book" in awarding contracts worth $1.6 million to the Groupaction ad firm.[8] Fraser promises a follow-up report on the sponsorship program due in early 2004." "February 13 — The National Post newspaper publishes a 2002 letter leaked to it by an unidentified third party, between the Liberal Party's then National Policy Chairman and Paul Martin, urging Martin to stop partisan financial abuses in the Sponsorship Program, thereby casting doubt on Martin's defence of personal ignorance' This, added to the agreed upon amount of $18 million for the inquiry and legal wranglings. Several Liberals did do federal jail time for fraud and other crimes, as listed in your link.
-
$18 million? The initial amount was almost $50 million. Add the investigation and commission report, some estimates have it at almost $100 million. That's more millions than thousands in the Duffy "scandal". https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/sponsorship-scandal-continues-cost-canadian-taxpayers-millions-dollars-190531076.html Why forget Martin's shipping line getting $161,000,000 in government contracts, much when he was finance minister, while only claiming $137,000. You know, easy to forget about $160,630,000. http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/martin_paul/businessinterests.html Provincially, the Liberals have multiple billion dollar boondoggles, but that's for another thread. Federal Liberals have also gotten into the action. Th'e billion-dollar boondoggle: Human Resources Development Minister Jane Stewart was in the hot seat in 2000 when an internal audit found that Jean Chrétien's Liberal government had failed to track employment program grants worth $1 billion to make sure the money was spent properly and the promised jobs were created. At one time, the RCMP had launched 12 separate investigations into HRDC files as a result of the audit; three of them related to grants awarded in the prime minister's riding of Saint-Maurice. Stewart faced grilling for months in the House of Commons, but managed to hold on to her job. She decided not to run again in the 2004 federal election, however. But, hey, you know, Duffy repaid $90,000 of money he may or may not even of had to repay. And of course, Liberals don't ever mention Shawinigate. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-shawinigate-affair-a-timeline So please, despite all the hysterical hyperbole, the Liberals are the political scandal champs.
-
You say they reinstated the cuts Nope. Not one cent to social assistance. Unemployment? Nope. Under the Liberals tightened rules, less than 40% of ppl applying were eligible. Health care?Cut to transfers for health care. Education? Cut to transfers for education. Tax credits for the middle class though!! Hurray!! No tax credits for unemployed or ppl on welfare. You know, the ppl who need them. This is the 1999 budget, to be clear, not the 1995 budget for which he so infamously cut every social benefit Canadians used to enjoy. You may find it commendable to illegally overtax Canadians, then make it almost impossible to reap the benefits of being taxed when they are unemployed and need it most. I find it reprehensible. But, you are a CPA, right, so you probably love Martin, the man who claimed the businesses he owned did $137,000 worth of business when he was finance minister, when really he did $161,000,000 worth. Oops, right, but no worries, his accountants said it was a mistake, and Martin did no jail time. I personally think they were the worst of the worst. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/02/can-f19.html http://www.hintonparklander.com/2003/12/03/paul-martin-is-the-cause-not-the-cure
-
Sneeringly? Sorry if it came across that way. I didn't understand the question. No new taxes were needed. They had billions in surplus from over taxation. I wouldn't have illegally taxed Canadians for EI then made it impossible for Canadians to get EI at a time they needed it most. I wouldn't have cut health care. I wouldn't have cut environmental and agricultural transfers by up to 60% Clearly, they ran surpluses, so they over taxed. They had multi million dollar slush funds. Again, no disrespect intended in my earlier reply. I found the question worded in a way I found to be confusing.
-
Dude, please be a little clearer. "Oh, and if you were not proposing further tax increases, then what spending, on top of what they cut, were you proposing to cut?" What are you asking here? This is the most convoluted attempt at a question.
-
In the words of Clint Eastwood, "deserves got nothing to do with it".
-
By your logic, if you had $500, you would have to give $125. You think someone should pony up $125 instead of $5 because they worked harder to get ahead?
-
Sorry, you were espousing the wonders of Liberal tax cuts. These cuts were available due to the fact that the Liberals illegally overtaxed us. Then they raped all of the things taxes are collected for. Health care. Education. You get the drift. I've read your post several times, and it's more convoluted than who's on first.
-
...like the fact Martin/Chretien et al illegally over taxed on EI and then made it impossible to get it, while reducing the amount of time on it if you were lucky enough to get it. to create surpluses. Those kind of facts? Or the fact that Martin/Chretein cut every service available including health education environment agriculture etc etc etc to create surpluses? Those kinds of facts? ...you know, those facts
-
Which isn't surprising, as huge percentage of peoplel on Facebook who would like such a thing are teenage pot smokers. Of course kids want to go to that "party".
-
yup. Pierre was the smart one...shudder
-
The CBC polltracker is just that...the CBC poll tracker. Nuff said...
-
Asking a question is not stating it should be. If you find it contradictory, sorry, poor choice of words on my part? Regardless, the OP is not stating the niqab should be banned.
-
Exactly. China, India, planet earth. We trade with lots of regimes and countries whose human rights records aren't the best. And please, Hippy, they are attacking us because they don't like our way of life, our freedom, and the fact our women are legally allowed to go topless in the street, even if they don't (to my chagrin) always choose to.
-
Asking if something can be banned is not the same as stating it should be banned.
-
Even the OP doesn't state he believes the niqab should be banned. Also, the OP puts it forth as a question: If they can, how come we can't? Not: they do, so should we.
-
I've never heard anyone in Canada be a proponent of outlawing the niqab. I have heard they should not be worn when taking citizenship oaths to become part of our Canadian family. I agree.
-
These cultures are still evolving? We're in the 21st century man, what the hell do you mean still evolving? How long does it take to evolve to know forced marriage with children is wrong, fgm is wrong, killing and torturing due to sexual orientation is wrong. None of these are needed to survive. And your "take a newborn" analogy could not be further from the truth. Ppl born or adopted into these stable homes in these societies can become maladjusted.
-
You don't agree. You are flippant about culture that marginalizes women, and wrongly accuse our democratically elected government of also doing this, which is demonstratively false.
