ExFlyer
Senior Member-
Posts
12,036 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by ExFlyer
-
Does how long after the election mean anything? He was selected by the conservative party and parachuted into a riding by the conservative party and a sitting member of the conservative party. Glad he is gone?? The cons worked so hard to get him and now glad he is gone??? That is the epitome of hypocritical LOL Oh, so did the conservatives not celebrate when liberals crossed the floor to them?? Well over 20 left the liberals and joined the conservatives. The most famous is Paul Hellyer, the conservative defence minister that amalgamated the Army, Navy and Air Force and basically destroyed out Military. Don't be so naive LOL
-
Patrick Brown vs Pablo Rodriguez
ExFlyer replied to August1991's topic in Provincial Politics in Canada
Patrick Brown never made it anywhere except to be mayor of Browntown. He was the failed leader of the Ontario provincial conservatives when forced to resign because of reports that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct from two women dating back to when he was a federal MP He was disqualified for even running as a federal conservative. Pablo Rodriguez was the Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. He also was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, Rodriguez served in the 29th Canadian Ministry as minister of Transport,[4] minister of Canadian Heritage, the Government Chief Whip, and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons So...what is it you are trying to say? -
Pierre is upset that Carney isn’t the kind of social conservative he wants him to be. Pierre Poilievre’s newest outburst is accusing Mark Carney of being a copycat. Supposedly Carney is using “his” language without backing it up. It’s so over-the-top I had to check whether it was satire. Poilievre doesn’t own language, and originality isn’t exactly his strong suit. What he does have is a worn-out, imported grievance routine, and he’s angry it’s no longer landing. Instead of adjusting or actually governing, he’s borrowing the Trump playbook, repeat the claim loudly and hope it becomes true. The irony is thick. A politician whose entire persona is stitched together from Trump’s tone, Fox News outrage, and Republican buzzwords is calling someone else unoriginal. Canadians already rejected that style of politics, more than once. Real action shows up in outcomes. Poilievre’s record is falling support, a shaky caucus, and constant finger-pointing. That isn’t leadership. It’s panic. Carney doesn’t need theatrics. He speaks plainly, understands institutions, and focuses on governing. That’s the real source of Poilievre’s frustration. Not imitation, but competence. Denying reality, blaming everyone else, and insisting you’re winning while you’re clearly not isn’t strength. It’s desperation.
-
Canadians were told the Poilievres needed privacy. They needed space. They needed time to “write a book.” So Ana Poilievre ascended into that luxurious Montreal penthouse, the type of address regular Canadians only see on postcards, and quietly separated herself from Pierre's circus tent of political theatre. Well, the cheque has cleared, and suddenly Ana has descended from the clouds again. Not for policy. Not for service. Not for the people. No, she's back because her husband is fighting for his political survival. And make no mistake: that's exactly what this sudden holiday-season “tour” by the Conservative Party is. Not an election campaign, there is no election for 3½ years. Not a listening tour, Pierre Poilievre's never listened to anyone who can't cut him a campaign cheque. This is a save-my-job sprint, paid for by the same taxpayers he lectures about “fiscal responsibility.” This month-long winter cross-country rally spree isn't about Canada. It's about Pension Poilievre desperately begging Conservative members to keep him through what many in his own party are whispering will be a bruising leadership review. And now—because Pierre knows his own routine is wearing thin—he's brought out the so-called “big guns.” His secret weapon. Ana. Funny how she disappears when accountability comes knocking, but reappears the moment Pierre needs a softer image. Hilarious how she suddenly has time to “reconnect with Canadians” right when her husband's grip on the leadership is slipping. But here's the question I've been asking for years: How much of this lifestyle—the penthouse, the travel, the staging, the private arrangements—is being paid for by Canadian taxpayers? Readers of The Provincial Times know the answer: More than they'll ever admit. Yes, this is deeply problematic, and yes, this should be treated accordingly. If Diana Fox Carney decided to move into a Montreal penthouse during her husband's leadership as Prime Minister, it would be turned into a multi-week scandal by the right-wing establishment media. If Rebecca O'Toole had lived anywhere other than the official residence during Erin's time as leader of the Opposition, it would have sparked a full audit. If Catherine Pinhas Mulcair so much as breathed near a luxury suite when Tom was leader of the Opposition? There would've been a parliamentary inquiry. But Ana Poilievre? Apparently, she's allowed to hop between luxury properties as she pleases, and the right-wing establishment media tells you it's “rude, ” “inappropriate,” and “unfair,” to ask questions. Why? Because the right-wing establishment media has decided that any scrutiny of the Poilievres is off-limits. Because they've built a brand around Pierre as the “ordinary working-class champion”—even as he lounges in publicly funded luxury, rents penthouses, and turns Stornoway into his own Shopify warehouse. They're terrified that Canadians might start asking real questions. Questions like: How much taxpayer money is subsidizing the Poilievre lifestyle? Who approved Ana's penthouse arrangements? Why was an unnecassary, costly by-election forced for a seat Poilievre didn't need, only so he could parade around pretending he's already Prime Minister? And why in God's name is a holiday-season national rally tour being billed as “political outreach” when it is transparently a survival strategy? While Canadians struggle with rent, groceries, and heating bills, Pierre Poilievre is spending the winter—and your money—playing dress-up in platform shoes and a muscle suit, touring the snow-covered country like a man running from his own party's judgment. He isn't campaigning for Canada's future. He's campaigning for his mansion. And yes, Ana Poilievre's entitlement deserves criticism. If the Poilievres want to enjoy a luxury Montreal penthouse, that's their business. But if taxpayer dollars are even adjacent to those costs? If party funds—subsidized by public reimbursements—are being used to underwrite their lavish arrangements? Then Canadians deserve answers. Because if anyone else in federal politics behaved like this, the radical right would be screaming “corruption” so loudly we'd all lose hearing. But when the Poilievres do it? Suddenly everyone is expected to shut up, clap politely, and pretend it's normal for a couple who claims to be “working class” to live like monarchs. Sorry, we're not playing that game. We're not here to protect Pension Poilievre's ego. We're not here to sanitize Ana's sudden return from the clouds. We're not here to pretend that #MANSIONGATE is anything but a growing symbol of what they actually are: A pair of political aristocrats using public funds, donor money, and taxpayer-backed perks to fund the lifestyle they believe they deserve. while lecturing the rest of us on thrift. Canadians deserve better. Conservatives deserve honesty.And Pension Poilievre deserves the leadership review he's so terrified of. Let the tour begin.
-
The conservatives and liberals, as a party, have always been close. The issue is not the party though, it is the leaders and Carney is seen as a better leader of Canada than PP by almost double. Whole some here say Canadians never vote for the leader but party and MP, I believe that is very wrong. Voters carefully look at who is going to lead as opposed to party philosophy.
-
The point and question was, if he is a foreign actor now that he has crossed the floor, was he not one last year when he was vetted and parachuted into a riding by the conservative party?? I have never said the liberals were any better. I have said though that floor crossing form all parties have occurred in Canadian parliament over 300 times. It is nothing unusual or new. The outrage by some conservative.members (leader and former leaders) is quite hypocritical considering they willingly accepted liberals crossing to the conservatives in the past. You cannot call the floor crossers traitors etc becasue as adults we regularly change our minds as we move on with our lives and beliefs
-
Carney is wrong: Free Trade with America is good
ExFlyer replied to August1991's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
I agree. When did Carney ever say Free trade wit the US is bad???? Oh well, another lie trying to erupt from the PP Le Pew crowd LOL -
Repeat ...Pisses you off eh too?? LOL LOL LOL Awww... poor baby Loser still crying about LOSING.. I use the word pedophile to those that keep admitting they are texting with a teenager, 12 year old, child. little biotch etc ...like you abd congfux do ...so, if the panties fit...then it is you LOL Just telling HA HA HA
-
WOW!!! What a bible thumpin bigot you are!!! "The Bible strongly supports cultural inclusion, teaching that all people are made in God's image, equally valued, and unified in Christ, transcending ethnic and social divides through love, hospitality, and justice, as shown by Jesus' command to love your neighbor and visions of a multi-ethnic kingdom. Key principles include seeing diverse people as one body with many parts (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) and welcoming strangers (Hebrews 13:2), while also encouraging cultural adaptation when it doesn't conflict with God's commands (1 Corinthians 9:22)."
-
Probably right ...maybe we should remove everything "Canada" has given them....considering they never paid for or had any of it taxed.
-
Not at all "sonny". It may very well be your discriminatory opinion but certainly far from fact. Canada has been an open country since the beginning. Everyone was and is welcome. "Canada has always been diverse and seen as a place where cultures mix, it's officially and popularly known as a cultural mosaic emphasizing distinct cultural groups preserving their heritage within a shared national identity. Canada's 1971 official multiculturalism policy cemented this mosaic image"
